NAT'L INST. OF STAND & TECH

I II III II III I II NIST

PUBLICATIONS ; REFEREIICE

t969

Making Valuable Measurements

Proceedings of the 1968 Standards

Laboratory Conference

QO

fOO

United States Department of Commerce

National Bureau of Standards

Special Publication 313
NBS TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

PERIODICALS

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH reports National

Bureau of Standards research and development in physics, mathematics, chemistry, and engineering.

Comprehensive scientific papers give complete details of the work, including laboratory data, experimental

procedures, and theoretical and mathematical analyses. Illustrated with photographs, drawings, and

charts.

Published in three sections, available separately: • Physics and Chemistry

Papers of interest primarily to scientists working in these fields. This section covers a broad range of physical and chemical research, with major emphasis on standards of physical measurement, fundamental

constants, and properties of matter. Issued six times

a year. Annual subscription: Domestic, 36.00; for- eign, ?7.25*.

• Mathematical Sciences

Studies and compilations designed mainly for the

mathematician and theoretical physicist. Topics in mathematical statistics, theory of experiment design,

numerical analysis, theoretical physics and chemistry, logical design and programming of computers

and computer systems. Short numerical tables. Issued quarterly. Annual subscription: Domestic,

?2.25; foreign, $1.7S*. • Engineering and Instrumentation

Reporting results of interest chiefly to the engineer

and the applied scientist. This section includes many

of the new developments in instrumentation resulting

from the Bureau's work in physical measurement,

data processing, and development of test methods.

It will also cover some of the work in acoustics,

applied mechanics, building research, and cryogenic

engineering. Issued quarterly. Annual subscription:

Domestic, ?2.75 ; foreign, 33.50*. TECHNICAL NEWS BULLETIN

The best single source of information concerning

the Bureau's research, developmental, cooperative

and publication activities, this monthly publication

is designed for the industry-oriented individual whose

daily work involves intimate contact with science

and technology

for engineers, chemists, physicists, research managers, product-development managers, and

company executives. Annual subscription: Domestic,

33.00; foreign, 34.00*.

•Difference in price is due to extra cost of foreign mailing. Order NBS publications from:

NONPERIODICALS

Applied Mathematics Series. Mathematical

tables, manuals, and studies. Building Science Series. Research results, test methods, and performance criteria of building materials, components, systems, and structures. Handbooks. Recommended codes of engineering

and industrial practice (including safety codes) developed in cooperation with interested industries,

professional organizations, and regulatory bodies.

Special Publications. Proceedings of NBS conferences, bibliographies, annual reports, wall charts,

pamphlets, etc. Monographs. Major contributions to the technical literature on various subjects related to the Bureau's scientific and technical activities. National Standard Reference Data Series.

NSRDS provides quantitative data on the physical

and chemical properties of materials, compiled from

the world's literature and critically evaluated.

Product Standards. Provide requirements for

sizes, types, quality and methods for testing various

industrial products. These standards are developed

cooperatively with interested Government and in- dustry groups and provide the basis for common

understanding of product characteristics for both

buyers and sellers. Their use is voluntary.

Technical Notes. This series consists of communications and reports (covering both other agency

and NBS-sponsored work) of limited or transitory

interest. Federal Information Processing Standards

Publications. This series is the official publication

within the Federal Government for information on

standards adopted and promulgated under the Public Law 89-306, and Bureau of the Budget Circular

A-86 entitled, Standardization of Data Elements

and Codes in Data Systems.

CLEARINGHOUSE

The Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and

Technical Information, operated by NBS, supplies

unclassified information related to Governmentgenerated science and technology in defense, space, atomic energy, and other national programs. For

further information on Clearinghouse services, write:

Clearinghouse

U.S. Department of Commerce

Springfield, Virginia 22151

Superintendent of Documents

Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Maurice H. Stans, Secretary

. NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS,* A. V. Astin, Director

Making Valuable Measurements

Proceedings of the 1968 Standards

Laboratory Conference

H. L. Mason, Editor

Presented by the National Conference of Standards Laboratories

August 26-29, 1968 National Bureau of Standards

Boulder, Colorado 80302

NBS Special Publication 313

,

Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Publ. 313, 177 pages (May 1969) CODEN: XNBSA

Issued May 1969

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $.150
NATIONAL EUHIIU OF STANDARDS

JUL 3 1 1969

Abstract

The National Conference of Standards Laboratories is a nonprofit, laboratory-oriented organization whose purpose is to promote cooperative efforts toward solving the common problems faced by standards laboratories in their

organization and operation. Established in 1961 under the sponsorship of the

National Bureau of Standards, NCSL has a membership of more than 200

organizations. Three biennial national meetings have been held previously

as well as a number of specialized regional workshops.

The theme of the 1968 Standards Laboratory Conference is "Making

Valuable Measurements." The papers presented will attempt to answer the

Who? When? Where? How? and Why? of making valuable measurements.

The conference provides an opportunity for discussion of problems confronting

laboratory managers and calibration personnel.

Representatives of member organizations of the National Conference of

Standards Laboratories met at the Boulder facility of the National Bureau of Standards August 25-29, 1968. Major addresses were given by A. V. Astin and

J. L. Sloop. Reports and discussions at eight sessions covered the management

of valuable measurements: the management of equipment and data, measure- ment agreement comparisons, international practices, Defense Department

activities, NBS activities, NCSL liaison, and NCSL committee work.

Key Words: Metrology management; National Conference of Standard

Laboratories; physical measurement.

Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 63-60068

II
THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OP

STANDARDS LABORATORIES

CHAIRMAN

C. E. White

Avco/MSD

VICE CHAIRMEN

E. J. Arsenaui.t

General Electric Company

J. L. Hayes

Navy MEC-Pomona

H. W. Lance

National Bureau of Standards

O. L. LlNEBRlNK

Battelle Memorial Institute SECRETARY

J. F. Hadley

Bendix Corporation

TREASURER

D. I. Hervig

U.S. Army Sentinel System

SPONSOR'S DELEGATE

E. Ambler

National Bureau of Standards

DELEGATE MEMBERS

M. T. Angelo

Lockheed-California Corporation R. Y. Bailey

Newark Air Force Station R. B. Ernst

North American Rockwell Corporation R. H. Verity

Leeds and Northrup Company

A. J. WOODINGTON

General Dynamics/Convair

PAST CHAIRMAN

J. R. Van De Houten

Bell Aerosystems Company

1968 STANDAEDS LABORATORY CONFERENCE

CONFERENCE COORDINATOR

E. J. Arsenaxjlt

General Electric Company

TECHNICAL PROGRAM CHAIRMAN

J. L. Hayes

Navy MEC-Pomona

COMMITTEE REPORTS CHAIRMAN

W. L. Vandal

McDonnell-Douglas Corporation

LOCAL ARRANGEMENTS

George Goulette

University of Colorado

PUBLIC RELATIONS CHAIRMAN

J. F. Hadley

Bendix Corporation

PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN

R. B. Ernst

North American Rockwell Corporation

PROCEEDINGS EDITOR

H. L. Mason

National Bureau of Standards

LUNCHEON CHAIRMAN

0. L. Linebrink

Battelle Memorial Institute

III
Foreword

The National Conference of Standards Laboratories provides a means by which the country's standards laboratories may cooperate in generating

and disseminating useful information relating to calibration techniques and

to the operation of standards laboratories. NBS has therefore encouraged

the organization and activities of the Conference, and will continue to provide

assistance in mutually useful activities, as valuable supplements to the

Bureau's work in disseminating accuracy of measurement throughout science

and industry. The publication of the Proceedings of this Conference, containing

papers presented at the national meeting, is one example of the Bureau's

cooperation.

Most of the papers presented at the meeting are published in this volume.

Primary responsibility for their technical content must rest, of course, with

the individual authors and their organizations.

A. V. Astust, Director.

IV
NCSL 68

Contents

Page Foreword, A. V. Astin iv On the Conference Theme, C. E. White 1 Keynote Address, A. V. Astin 2 Measurements for Society, J. L. Sloop 5

Session 1: DOD Activities, J. L. Hayes, Chairman

Activities of the DOD Calibration Coordination Group, R. Y. Bailey 9 Metrology and Calibration in DOD Quality and RehabiUty Operations, M. L. Fruechtenicht 11 Metrology and Calibration Considerations in Integrated Logistic Support Plans, S. Crandon 14

Session 2. NCSL Liaison Delegate Reports, J. L. Hayes, Chairman

The Instrumentation and Measurement Group of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers,

F. L. Hermach 19

Joint Activities of the Instrument Society of America and NCSL, 0. L. Linebrink 21 The Precision Measurements Association, R. B. Ernst 22 The American Ordnance Association, J. A. Mallison 23 Report of the Calibration and Standards Project of the Aeropsace Industries Association Quality Assurance Committee, N. D. Smith 24

Session 3. NBS Activities, J. L. Hayes, Chairman

The Economic Value of Making Measurements, H. E . Morgan 27 Maximum Use of Existing Accuracy in Measurements, R. S. Powers 37 New Directions for NBS Outputs, E. C. Wolzien 38

Highlights of the NBS Boulder Laboratories, T. M. Flynn 43

Session 4. International Measurements, H. W. Lance, Chairman

Measurement Control as a Valuable National Asset, C. E. White 51 Legal Metrology and Establishment of Metrology Centres in India, V. B. Mainkar 55

Progress of the British Calibration Service, H. E. Barnett 61 Some Reflections Upon Common Measurement Systems, H. F. Monaghan 65

Progress in Adopting the Metric System in the United Kingdom, A. H. A. Wynn 67

Ireland and the Metric System, M. E. O'Hagan 71 The Value of International Measurements, R. H. C. Foxwell 75 Large Problems of Small Countries, L. Frank 78 Developments in the Canadian Measurement System, J. G. Cameron 80 The Advantages and Disadvantages of Industrialized Nations Developing and Supporting A Dual

System of Weights and Measures, J. S. Weber 83

Session 5. NCSL Committee Reports, W. L. Vandal, Chairman

Information Committee A-6, P. H. Hunter and J. H. Blount 87 Recommended Practices Committee A-9, W. R. Holmes 92

Statistical Procedures Committee C-7, D. B. Sharp 92

Calibration Procedures Committee C-6, A. R. Baughman 92 Measurement Agreement Comparison Committee C-5, H. S. Ingraham, Jr 93 Procurement Regulations Committee B-7, F. J. Dyce 95 Workload Control Committee B-1, D. J. Greb 98

Adjusting Calibration Intervals, R. H. Johnson 99

Session 6. The Value of Measurement Agreement Comparison, H. S. Ingraham., Jr, Chairman

An International Comparison of Power Standards at 3 GHz, P. A. Hudson and G. F. Engen 103 Some U.S./U.K. Calibration Laboratory Measurement Comparisons, F. E. Parr 104 The NCSL Interlaboratory Comparison of 1965, H. L. Mason 114 The Interservice Measurement Audit Program, G. G. May 122

V
Session 7. The Management of Equipment and Data, J. C. Shackelford, Chairman

An Information System for Standards Laboratories, W. J. Anson 125

Administrative Problems in the Introduction of an Automatic Measuring System, G. W. Pentico 129

Processing Technical and Administrative Data within the Standards Laboratory, L. Darling 134

Is There a Figure of Merit for the Measurement Process? L. Julie 138

Total Instrument Control, L. M. Auxier and L. A. Micco 143 Management Measurement Techniques for Calibration Laboratories, E. J. Arsenault 146 Detecting Economic Obsolescence in Measurement Equipment, C. R. Duda 154

Calibration Data Collection and Utilization, W. L. Bates 158

Session 8. The Management of Valuable Measurements, A. J. Woodington, Chairman

Value Engineering Techniques—A Way of Managing Valuable Measurements, P. I. Harr 161 Government's View of Contractor's Management of Valuable Measurements, H. B. Berkowitz 165 Some Developments in the Management of Standards Activities in the NBS Institute for Basic Standards, B. W. Birmingham 168 Weapon System User Management of Measurements, R. Y. Bailey 173 1967-1968 Report of the Chairman, C. E. White 175

VI
NCSL 68

ON THE CONFERENCE THEME

C. E. White, NCSL Chairman

Today we are gathered together in this wonderful bulwark of protection for, and sustainment

of, our profession. The facilities and people of the

National Bureau of Standards represent, in accord- ance with our laws, the ultimate word in the meas- urement standards of these United States. Wliile we are here as guests of this widely respected

agency of our government, it might be timely to make some introspective explorations of our minds,

literally to search our souls, and to ask ourselves,

"Why are we here?" and secondly, "Who cares?"

The theme of our Conference is "Making Valuable Measurements." It was not chosen by the Program Committee in a light manner. Rather, it is a reflection of the concern with which we view the

whole structure of controlled measurements. It reflects the continuing displays, in a majority of U.S.

industries, of the non-serious and non-appreciative

attitude displayed by top management toward the

impact upon the quality of products and goods of

uncontrolled or poorly controlled measurements.

For an example of how simple it is to delude

ourselves as to the worthiness and sacredness of our fight for recognition, consider our theme once

again. As we say it to ourselves we emphasize each

word in a positive, decisive, and self-satisfactory manner

MAKING VALUABLE MEASUREMENTS

It is perfectly natural and logical that we hear

it that way because that is the inflection we want

to hear

!

Suppose, however, we repeat those same words

and we change the emphasis upon individual

words, or change the inflection of our voices. If for

instance we emphasize in this manner Making valuable Measurements

!

we look toward management for a pat on the head

and a "Well done," for we have contributed toward

profits

!

Changing the emphasis once again, let us repeat

the phrase in this manner

Making Valuable measurements ! Now we look upon ourselves with pride, for we

are emphasizing our profession. And of course all

measurements we perform are valuable, for it is the nature of our profession to establish and control precision and accuracy, is it not?

But, is there a skeptic within sound of our spoken words ? Perhaps he interprets this wonderful phrase in a slightly different manner, thus

Making valuable ( ?) Measurements

or adds insult to injury by raising the inflection

of his voice at the end of the phrase and in effect deriding the whole idea, thus

MAKING valuable MiEASUREMENTS ? ? You who are gathered here today are faced with

an extraordinary challenge. You know you can make w.eam.rements^ but how valuable are they—to

yourself, to your organization whether it is industrial, educational, or other, and finally to your nation ? Yes—to your nation ! For your nation's econ- omy ultimately rests upon the acceptability of

your work. Several times in the next few days

you will find this theme repeated, both by our own

nationals and by our guests from overseas. The challenge then is for you to work diligently

for a new attitude toward your work and your

own participation, in order to earn the respect and

cooperation of your management. For, too long a period of time has already ended, during which

your role in management has been a passive one. Somewhat like the experience of Prof. Henry

Higgins in "My Fair Lady," your management

has "grown accustomed to your face" and "like

breathing in and out" they regard your presence

with a great deal of tolerance. You are after all, in 90 percent of industry, part of overhead and can

be tolerated up to a certain point. But—don't for- get what happens to a person when he stops

"breathing in and out." The same thing can happen

to your company or institution, if you and your

measurement activities stop "breathing." When

you gather together at the several scheduled ses- sions, think, discuss, and absorb as much as you

can from the speakers who have worked so hard

to bring to you much of value. Think beyond your

daily routines, think beyond the walls of your

laboratories, think in terms of top management

THINK BIG!

1
NCSL 68

KEYNOTE ADDRESS

Dr. A. V. Astin, Director,

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

It is always a pleasure for me to meet with the

representatives of the National Conference of

Standards Laboratories. We look upon this Conference as an indispensable link between the National Bureau of Standards and the technological

public which we serve, and for that reason your

conference, your deliberations, and your membership have high priority in the attention of the National Bureau of Standards.

I last had the privilege of speaking to you as a Conference when you helped us open up our new

laboratories in Gaithersburg a little over two

years ago. My purpose here today is to talk on

the theme of your Conference, "Making Valuable

Measurements."

The primary reasons for making measurements

are, first, to increase our knowledge and understanding of the physical world in which we live,

and second, to aid us in using that knowledge for a better life. In general, the value of a measure- ment will increase as its reliability and accuracy

increase. The worth of a measurement is essentially

the heart of the theme of this Conference.

An appreciation of the value of measurement

goes back to the earliest times in recorded history.

The science of geometry was invented largely to aid the Egyptians in measurement problems as- sociated with keeping track of land records and

with their magnificent structural achievements,

many of which survive to this day. The Greeks

had great appreciation for measurement. Socrates,

as quoted in Book X of Plato's "Eepublic," made

one of the best observations of the value of meas- urements that I recall. He discusses the illusions we are exposed to when we trust to our senses and

do not resort to measurement, and is quoted as follows

:

Thus, every sort of confusion is revealed within

us, and the arts of measuring, numbering, and

weighing come to the rescue of the human under- standing—there is the beauty of them—the ap- parent greater or less, or more, or heavier, no

longer have mastery over us, but give way before measurement and calculation and weight.

Measurement, as you all know, began to assume

scientific importance at the time of Gallileo, when

he demonstrated that observation and measure- ment were the only ways to make a careful and

meaningful analysis of theory, that they are the

only ways in which we can systematically apply

our knowledge about the properties of matter and

materials. And, following Gallileo, of course, both

measurement and science improved at a rapid

pace. One hundred years ago. Lord Kelvin made

the statement that you are all familiar with : ". . . when you can measure what you are speaking about

and can express it with numbers, you know something about it. If you cannot measlure it, and if you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge

is of a meager and an unsatisfactory kind." However, it seems to me that this statement resulted

in a great deal of attention being given to meas- urement essentially for measurement's sake, with- out any real attempt to understand better the

process of measurement or the theory of errors both random and systematic. More recently, the

whole business of measurement was put into proportion in Charles Singers' "History of Scientific

Ideas," when he says: "Science does not seek to

solve ultimate problems; rather science seeks to

solve its limited problems with a known degree of

accuracy and known margin of error." This, in

my judgment, emphasizes the aspect of measure- ment which gives it its greatest value.

In considering the subject of making valuable

measurements, it should be useful to categorize

measurement activity under three headings : First,

there are those measurement activities aimed at increasing our understanding of natural phe- nomena. This essentially represents the work of

the scientist, both basic and applied. Second, there are those measurement activities aimed at exploiting scientific and technical information for producing new or better goods or services or producing them more effectively. These measurement

activities involve the work of the engineers and

technologists. Third, there are those measurement

activities aimed ait achieving more effective interchangeability, including not only the interchangeability of information, but interchangeability of

goods and services. This is the activity that relates directly to the work of this Conference, and is, of

course, directly related to the effectiveness of the

other two measurement activities. In most cases, it is extremely difficult if not impossible to make an effective evaluation of a par2
ticular act of measurement. The value of the act of measurement arises from the value of the objective for which the measurement may be an in- dispensable ingredient. But it is not fair to use the

total value of that objective as the value of the

measurement activity itself. Consider the nature

of experimental science. Achievement of knowledge involves a complex interaction : scientists, resources of equipment, and experience with the

measuring process, each of which is indispensable

in terms of the discovery of new knowledge. In

this case I think it would be more or less meaningless to attempt to assign a value to measurement

activity—certainly we couldn't assign it solely to any of the elements ; they are all necessary.

It becomes somewhat more meaningful, however,

when we talk about trying to increase accuracy or

precision, particularly when we consider the sec- ond and third categories of measurement activity

that I spoke of. It is on this aspect that I want to put my emphasis, that is, efforts to improve the

accuracy and reliability of measurements with

which we are concerned. Even for measurements

aimed at increasing basic understanding, increases

in precision and accuracy have great importance.

Of course, measurement activities in basic science

seldom have specific objectives, because this would

be contrary to the very nature of discovery. But

it is important, even in basic science, that we continually be alert to understanding those factors

which influence the reliability of a measurement

result. Consider the area of atomic weights, which

I think is one of the most spectacular in all scientific history. As atomic weights were measured more accurately, inconsistencies were discovered

which required new theory to explain. The first go-around led to the discovery of the rare gases. Following this, there were still further refine- ments in our ability to measure atomic weights,

and further inconsistencies arose which required new theory to explain these. The result was the

discovery of isotopes. Then, still later, atomic

weights were measured with even greater ac- curacy, and still further inconsistencies arose which required additional explanation. And this

development, of course, led to the concept of packing fractions, and the equivalence of mass and

energy.

In our efforts to improve accuracy in the other

two categories—the exploitation of knowledge

and the exchange of information and materials

we are able, I believe, to begin to get to the area where we can assign somewhat meaningful values

and make predictions. In designing any technological device it is essential that we have confidence limits assigned to the characteristics which

go into the design ; otherwise the design is bound

to be unreliable. Measurements on the production

line are valuable in relation to quality control only

insofar as they give us reliability and confidence

in the product. I think you are all familiar with

many instances of the sort. For example if the

design requirements for a particular parameter

call for a level of at least 50 units of the parameter

and if we can measure this parameter only to plus

or minus ten units, then it becomes necessary to over-design by this level of uncertainty, and generally over-design is costly. This is the sort of

situation where you can relate value specifically to efforts to improve accuracy.

In the exchange of information or goods, relia- bility and accuracy of measurements are definitely

associated with the reliability of exchange. The

whole system of interchangeable manufacture, for

example, requires parts which are interchangeable

not only from the point of view of dimensional

tolerances but for a variety of electrical, optical,

and thermal characteristics.

Our program at the National Bureau of Standards on standards reference data is essentially

aimed at exploiting published measured values,

resolving their inconsistencies, assigning confi- dence limits to the values, and then making them

available to the nation's scientists and engineers

for research or design. Here, one can develop many

techniques to evaluate improvements in the re- liability of the data which increase the efficiency

and effectiveness of the scientists and engineers

who use them.

The appreciation of the importance of relia- bility in the exchange of scientific information and

the exchange of technological goods and services

has led to a number of significant developments

which I should like to enumerate briefly. First of

all, the NCSL, which is aimed essentially at adding to the reliability and confidence we have in

the measured values of goods and services that

enter into American industry. Second is the evolution of the national measurement system concept.

You have heard from Dr. Huntoon about this

concept. The primary focus is to increase our knowledge of the reliability of measurement activities through a better understanding of the

inter-relationships of different measurement activities throughout the nation and throughout the

world. In this process we have evolved the concept

of a number of networks. In looking at the operation within the network, and understanding the

interactions there, we are better able to assign

values to efforts to improve reliability and confi- dence in these networks. First of all is the

instrument network which involves a calibration

process—the one I think most of you are more

intimately associated with. Then there is the techniques network, and finally there is the data net- work. The National Standards Reference Data

System which I mentioned a moment ago is, of

course, a part of the data network; data being one of the products of the measurement process. Then, we have a number of international ar- rangements which seek to increase reliability and

effectiveness of the exchange mechanisms for

scientific and technical information, and for technological goods and services. Senior place in this

3
group of international mechanisms is filled by the

International Bureau of Weights and Measures,

which seeks to provide reliable and reproducible

standards for the units in which all measurements

must be expressed. Next is the International Organization for Legal Metrology, which seeks to develop reliable testing techniques and instruments for the measurement of quantity and quality. Next are two related organizations, the Inter- national Standards Organization and the Inter- national Electrotechnical Commission, which aim

at the development of engineering standards,

based on, first of all, criteria for the performance

of goods and services, and then on measurement

techniques to determine performance to such

criteria. Our concern with the value of improved ac- curacy in measurement has led to significant ad- vances in recent decades in the science of error determination. I'd like to mention a few. First

of all are the phenomenal advances that have been

made in the statistical sciences, whereby a number

of techniques have been evolved which help us to sort out and evaluate random errors in the meas- urement process. These have been very useful. You've heard reports on a number of NBS contributions to this field at previous meetings of

NCSL. Second are the approaches aimed at understanding better the interaction of the measurement

process with the object being measured. This is the area which must be explored further if we

are to reduce systematic errors in the measurement

process. We need to know how the act of measure- ment itself will influence or alter the measured

value. Third are the developments aimed at defining more precisely what it is that we want to measure. This becomes extremely important if we

are to make progress in reducing the uncertainty

associated with physical measurement. For example, if we push extensively the business of trying

to measure the characteristics of a surface, or the

level of the surface, or the position of the surface,

ultimately we get down to a position where molecular structure and molecular vibration will pro- vide limits beyond which we cannot go. Coming to the subject of value itself (this is a most difficult task; you're going to hear some

discussion about it during your sessions) we of

the National Bureau of Standards are very much

concerned in trjdng to evolve techniques for as- signing benefit values, hopefully measured in

dollars, to a measurement process, or particularly to efforts to achieve increased accuracy or

reliability in the measurement processes. We

have found that our development of the concept

of a measurement system is helpful in this

respect, because by understanding better the in- ter-relatedness of measurement activities to each

other and to the achievement of a variety of

objectives, we think we are in a better way to make progress in assigning cost values, if not to

all, at least to some significant measurement

processes. Tomorrow morning we are going to

hear about some of our efforts in this direction

from Dr. Howard Morgan of our Technical

Analysis Division.

In this business of the cost of measurement

activities, the cost of making changes, and the

improvement of measurement activities, I want

to divert for a moment to announce a recent development that all of you may not be familiar

with; and that is that the Congress has finally,

after many years of discussion and debate,

passed a piece of legislation to authorize a study

of the problems associated with the increased use

of the metric system around the world. The

President signed this bill on the 9th of August.

There is one hitch in this bill. It directs tha/t during this fiscal year, the study must be undertaken

with no additional funds, so our efforts during

the fiscal year 1969 will largely be associated with

planning. However, we are here definitely con- fronted with cost/benefit or benefit/cost types of

studies. We want to be able to understand the

economic impact upon this country of the fact

that within a few years all of the technologically

sophisticated nations of the world, except the

United States and Canada, will be using the

metric system unless some change is made. We

want to understand the costs associated with

whatever changes it seems desirable for us to make. We want to understand what benefits

might be derived from such changes. So, we are going to need in this study the best techniques

that are available in relating measurement acti- vities to benefit/cost analysis.

Our own effort is being headed by A. G.

McNish whom I think many of the members of

this Conference know well; he has participated

in a number of your activities in the past. We

are planning to draw on other resources of the

Department of Commerce such as the Office of

Business and Defense Services, Census Bureau,

Office of Business Economics, as well as the

Office of International Trade. Since our fiscal resources are limited, we need help from volimteers, and I earnestly solicit offers of cooperation from you gentlemen. If you would like to contribute to this study, please let us know.

In summary, I would like to say that measure- ment becomes valuable largely through the confidence and reliability that we can give to a measured value. In addition, measurement is in- dispensable, as I have pointed out, in achieving

many important objectives. But the inherent

worth of a particular measiirement or a series of

measurements is the confidence you have in the

results, and the value of measurement activity

is usually increased as we improve the reliability

and reduce the margin of errors. I'd like to wish

you success in your deliberations here over the next few days. It might be that if you can come

up with some suggestions for assigning values

to various acts of measurement, this may be one

of the best measurements we can have.

4
NCSL 68

MEASUREMENTS FOR SOCIETY

John L. Sloop

Assistant Associate Administrator for Advanced Research and Technology,

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, D.C. 20546

This Conference has been particularly revealing and useful to me. In conducting applied re- search in propulsion for twenty years, I took

measurement standards pretty much for granted.

In more recent years of research management,

they became even more remote. As Charles White

points out, the science of measurement is as old

as man's known activities—at least 3,000 years

B.C.-—and ". . . far more people know more about

the principles of good health and medicine than

they do of the principles of accurate measurement." He relates poor measurement to scrapped

products and waste and, in view of about 20 million measurements made each day, the importance of metrology to science and technology is very great indeed. I salute your work, through

this Conference, for improving technical communication and for making the significance of

measurements better known.

As I thought about your efforts, a number of

recent ideas for new measurements and the need

for more accurate measurements came to mind.

The use of lasers to measure continental drift,

for example, or the need for extremely accurate

clocks for use in air traffic control for collision

avoidance in the era of supersonic transportation. I am sure, however, that you are well aware

of these new measurement challenges. So I have

chosen to talk instead, about the need for a different kind of measurement—one focused on the

role of science and technology in our society.

What yardstick can we apply to measure their

importance? How can we assess their impact on

social and economic progress ? How can we determine hotv mucli of our national resources should

be devoted to science and technology? For you

who deal with exact physical relationships, these

intangibles must be the antithesis of your activities. Yet they are equally needed and equally

vital to our advancement as are physical measurements. For they are the factors, in one form

or another, that are used by decision-makers in

government, industry, and universities in balancing science and technology with other social and

economic needs.

In the last ten years, the United States has

tripled the amount of annual expenditures for

research and development—from 5 billion dollars in 1958 to 17 billion dollars this year. What

benefits has this brought?

We have only to look about us to see the many

changes that have taken place in the last ten years—the improvements and the problems. We

enjoy better health and housing, a bountiful production of food and consumer goods, rapid trans- portation and communications, more education

for more of us, and more leisure and recreation.

But we can also see pollution of our air and our

streams, crowding on our highways and in our

cities, and mounting problems of disposal of

waste from an affluent society.

Europe sees a direct link between our capability in innovation, education, and management

and our economic growth. Servan-Schrieber's

book "The American Challenge" deals with the

American economic invasion of Europe and it has aroused great interest there. In looking at the

"American Colossus," Servan-Schrieber points out that "American industry produces twice the

goods and services of all European industry

combined. ... It produces a third of the total production of all other countries in the world.

The Americans have achieved this with only

seven percent of the surface of the globe and six

])ercent of its population. One third of all stu- dents in the world pursuing a higher educajtion are American. . . . All by themselves, the Americans consume a third of the total world production of energy, and has one third of all the

world's highways. Half the passenger miles

flown each year are by American airlines. Two

trucks of every five on the road are Americanmade and American-based. Americans own three

out of every five automobiles in the world." He

adds "Advanced technology and management

skills have I'aised per capita production in the

United States to a level 40 percent above that of

Sweden (next highest), 60 percent above Germany, 70 percent above France and 80 percent

above Britain."

5
These statistics and the forces behind them make

a very strong case for science and technology. But we live in a period of rapid change and of ques- tioning of all aspects of our social and economic

structure. Science and technology are experiencing

the full searchlight of this inquiry.

In this process of questioning, critics of tech- nology are speaking out. Lewis Mumford in "The

Mytii of the Machine" questions the part that technology plays in human development. He believes

"megatechnics" will lead to man as "... a passive,

purposeless, machine-conditioned animal whose

proper functions, as technicians now interpret

man's role, will either be fed into the machine or

strictly limited and controlled for the benefit of

de-personalized, collective organization." In short,

he argues that we are overcomitted to technics.

"Wilbur H. Ferry, in the March 3 issue of Saturday

Revieio, echoes the same theme in saying that the

infatuation with science and technology is bottomless, and he argues that we must control technology

before it controls us. I am sure there are others

with similar views.

Critics and proponents alike will asree, I believe,

that science and technology can and do bring beneficial results. The issue goes beyond that. It re- volves around What science and technologv? How

much ? and How is it to be used ? To answer these

questions, we need a srood method of measurement

or assessment of the impact of science and

technology on society.

In the words of Concrressman Emilio Q. Daddario of Connecticut, "The past few years have

brought a change in attitude toward science and

technology, both in the public, which is now more

technically literate, and in Congress, with its en- hanced understanding. Faith in science, and awe of

technology, have been supplanted bv a recognition

of a grave responsibility for decision—that is, what should we do with what we know?" He goes on to say, "Technology assessment is a major key

to discharging that responsibility. We are now

turning to the natural sciences and asking them to move further in achieving a collective wisdom with

politics, law, economics, and social interests for the

management of technology."

Aircraft and space technology, carried out by the

NA SA, are parts of the nation's total R&D effort. Aircraft technology is a key element in the rapid

growth of air transportation. Aircraft technology comes from the contributions of military needs and

from over fifty years of continuous aeronautical

research by NASA and its predecessor the

NACA—^the National Advisory Committee on

Aeronautics. Let us take a look at the growth of

air transportation. In 1967, United States domestic

and international passenger service reached 99 bil- lion passenger miles with 132 million passengers. This is three times the passenger miles of 1958 but

only one-third of what the Federal Aviation Administration forecasts for 1977. In addition, there

are over a hundred thousand private aircraft

aerospace products in 1967 was 27.2 billion dollars. We believe that future growth in air transportation requires a continuous support for research

and aircraft technology. There is a large future

potential in short-haul types of aircraft between

and within large urban centers. These V/STOL

types, as they are called, have been worked on for a long time but their economical production and

operation remain locked in technical problems. The

rapid growth of the past has brought problems of

noise, pollution, crowded airways, and safety;

these must be solved for future growth and social acceptance. There is much to be done.

The benefits of the younger space technology

are only beginning to unfold. Briefly, here is where we stand in ten short years

• The start of a world-wide communication net- work bv satellite organized and operated as a commercial business. Live TV broadcasts of significant events from other continents is getting to be

commonplace. • A world-wide meteorological network created

and turned over to the Environmental Sciences and

today, and this may double by 1977. Total sales of

Services Administration. Forty countries have

automatic picture taking equipment and can get

local cloud cover data direct from our Nimbus

satellite. • A greatly increased scientific understanding

of our earth and its space environment through

measurements by scientific satellites (Explorers,

Pioneers, IMF's)

.

• Beautiful reconnaissance photographs of the

moon by five Lunar Orbiter flights and unmanned

landing of five Surveyor spacecraft on the moon

with close-up photographs of its surface and tests of its soil characteristics. • Mariner flights to Venus and Mars, measure- ments made in their vicinity and the pictures of

the Martian surface. • The wonderful, successful Mercury and Gemini flights that laid the base for man's exploration

of space, beginning with Apollo flights to the moon.

• The growth in technologies that provides the

foundation for future space missions and which

stimulates applications on earth.

Yes, we have come a long way in ten years but

much more remains to be done. What about the

future? Dr. H. A. Hess, Chairman of the Space

Science Board of the National Academy of

Sciences, points out that the future space program

can best be aimed at two goals : the exploitation of

space technology for science, and the use of space

technology to support applications of benefit to

society. The latter goal includes satellites for communication, meteorology, and information handling and, I would add, other technologies serving

the basic needs of society. An example of the latter

is electronics, an area not exclusively^ supported by

space technology but which is a major element in

6
space systems. Let me turn again to ServanSchrieber, who calls electronics the basis for the

second industrial revolution—where the labor of

the human brain is replaced by computers. He in- dicates that already American corporations in

Europe control 15 percent of the electronic con- sumer goods, 50 percent of semi-conductors, 80

percent of computers, and 95 percent of integrated

circuits. He attributes American strength in elec- tronics to government help, pointing out that 65

percent of the electronic business is by government

contract and 85 percent of the R&D is government

sponsored.

As you know, the Space Program has been re- ceiving its share of criticism and the full brunt of

the cut in spending. Such headlines as "U.S. Space

Program: Economy Ax Victim?" are not uncom- mon nor are editorials such as "The Decline of

Space." Many of the criticisms focus on the mission-oriented aspect of the program and not the

broad benefits and implications of the technology

that are evolving. This month the agency an- nounced an interim operating plan of $3.85 billion,

reflecting a $362 million reduction by Congress in

appropriation requests, with consideration of

further possible reductions under the Capital

Revenue and Capital Expenditure Act of 1968. As

Mr. Webb has put it, "The totality of problems

our nation faces reaches far beyond NASA. As

responsible government officials, we in NASA ac- cept the results of our nation's decision making

processes." He emphasized, however, the need to continue a broad program of advanced research to provide technology for future national needs in

aeronautics and space. Deeply conscious of the

larger responsibility of the agency, Mr. Webb has

continuously stimulated studies to assess the impact of aeronautics and space technology on our

society. One such study, conducted by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, resulted in a book "Social Indicators", a first and important step

towards the types of measurements that we need. I

will quote from its Foreword by Earl P. Stevenson

as my closing thought : "The Space Program is not,

of course, the unique or the sole agent of teclmological change in American society ; NASA, however, is a pioneer among government agencies in

its sensitivity to the wideranging nature of its effects on society and in its awareness of the need

to develop methods for anticipating these effects and—if possible—bringing them under some degree of conscious control."

7

NCSL 68

SESSION 1: DOD ACTIVITIES

Chairman: J. L. Hayes

U.S. Navy Metrology Engineering Center, Pomona, California 91766 ACTIVITIES OF THE DOD CALIBRATION COORDINATION GROUP

Ray Y. Bailey

Deputy Chief, Air Force Calibration and Metrology Division, Newark Air Force Station, Ohio 43055 The Department of Defense Calibration Coordination Group (DOD/CCG) is estab- lished to provide coordination and cooperation among the three Services in their calibration and metrology programs and in their relations with the National Bureau of Standards

(NBS).

Introduction

On December 2, 1966, a task group of Army,

Navy, and Air Force personnel was established by

the Office of the Deputy Director, Research and

En^neering (OOD E&E) and the Office of the

Assistant Secretary of Defense, Installation and

Logistics (OASD/I&L) . The initial assignment of

this task group was to develop a more effective

relationship between the DOD and the NBS. The

task group formed the DOD/CCG to carry out

their recommendations. Additional responsibilities

have been assigned to the DOD/CCG to improve

interservice coordination and cooperation on their

calibration and metrology programs.

DOD/CCG Membership

The members of the DOD/CCG selected by each

of the Military Departments are: (a) Melvin L. Fruechtenicht, Army; (b) Jerry L. Hayes, Navy;

and (c) Ray Y. Bailey, Air Force, the latter serv- ing as chairman for the first two years. The chairmanship will rotate among the members.

Department of Defense/National

Bureau of Standards Agreement

The CCG prepared a proposed Memorandum of

Agreement for the DOD and NBS. This agreement was submitted to the NBS in September 1967. The

agreement was approved by the NBS in January

1968, and with minor changes subsequently approved by DOD. Basically, this agreement establishes a procedure for: (a) determining DOD

requirements for calibration services and calibration engineering ; (b) reviewing these requirements

with the NBS and determining costs; and (c)

funding for the required calibration and related

engineering services.

The DOD/CCG will determine requirements

for five years in advance. The initial presentation

of requirements was made to the NBS for FY 1969.

Through this combined effort the NBS can better

plan its course of actions to support the DOD re- quirements. In addition, the DOD will gain more

effective utilization of funds programmed for support of calibration services and calibration en- gineering provided by the NBS.

DOD/CCG Working Groups

The DOD/CCG has established U working

groups to carry out interservice coordination. Nine

of these groups are engineering working groups

in specific measurement categories. These are: Direct Current and Low Frequency ; R F Measurements; Field Intensity; Frequency and Time;

Infrared and Lasers; Flow; Force and Mass;

Pressure, Vacuum, and Leak; Shock and

Vibration.

It is planned to establish two additional engineering working groups, one on Time Domain and

one on Transducer Dynamics. The functions of the

engineering working groups are: (1) Determine

measurement requirements of common interest and

the method of support; (2) Review of engineering

projects being performed in-house; (3) Review of

equipment evaluation results; (4) Determine re- quirements for engineering projects which cannot

be performed in-house; (5) Determine requirements for new or improved calibration services

from NBS.

Through the efforts of the engineering working

groups, the program for future NBS requirements

is developed for the CCG.

9
Other working groups and their mission and

accomplishments are listed below

Oalibration Procedures Working Group: This

group is responsible for standardizing the teclmical procedures so that all three Services can use a procedure written by any one of the Services.

They have written a Military Specification MIL0-24133 for this purpose. (This Mil Spec is much

the same as the recommended form as prepared

by the NCSL Procedures Oommittee.)

Galihi^ation Intervals Working Group: This

group is responsible for reviewing calibration in- tervals and establishing common policies for

changing intervals. This group has not established

common policies at this point in time.

Oalibration Training Working Group: This

group is responsible for coordinating and standardizing calibration training courses for the three

Services. As a result of their efforts, the Air Force

and Navy have established joint Oalibration training courses at Lowry Air Force Base, Denver,

Oolorado.

Calibration Workload Interservice Workvng

Group: This group is resjDonsible for analyzing

calibration workloads and recommending support

agreements between specific organizations. Workload exchange or support from one Service to an- other is common practice today.

Conclusion

It can be seen from the activities of the DOD/

OOG and the subgroups that considerable progress

has been made in interservice coordination and co- operation. The members of the OOG are quite sure that further advances in such coordination and

cooperation will occur in the future.

10
METROLOGY AND CALIBRATION IN DOD QUALITY AND RELIABILITY

OPERATIONS

Melvin L. Fruechtenicht

Army Metrology and Calibration Center, Army Missile Command, Huntsville, Alabama 35812 A Department of Defense Conference on Quality and Reliability Management was held

in August 1966 at Annapolis, Maryland. Panel 8 addressed the subject of the role of metrology (measurement science) and calibration (measurement service) in quality and

reliability operations. The report of Panel 8, which is reproduced on the following pages, discussed the following topics : 1. Identification of new measurement and calibration require- ments ; 2. Selection of proper test and insjiection equipment and measurement processes

;

3. Promulgation of uniform specifications controlling contractors' calibration systems;

4. Provision of metrology support to contract administration personnel ; 5. Establishment

of a central point of contact within the Office of the Secretary of Defense responsible for overall policy for metrology and calibration and for coordination with other Government

agencies.

Identification of New Measurement and

Calibration Requirements

Identification of new systems measurement re- quirements which are beyond the current state-of- the-art must be accomplished as early as possible

in the materiel life cycle, preferably in the concept

stage, to permit maximum lead time for development of supporting standards and instrumentation. Normally the systems development contractor

is in the best position to identify and analyze such

requirements.

The services and NASA have used several approaches to the problem of early identification of new measurement requirements with varying degrees of success. Documents such as MIL-Q-9858A

(DoD), Quality Program Requirements, MILD-9412D (USAF), Data for Aerospace Ground

Equipment; and MIL-Q-21549B (WEP), Product Quality Program Requirements for Fleet Ballistic Missile Weapon System Contractors, contain

general requirements. More specific requirements

have been outlined in special contract provisions;

however, there is no uniform method for submission of such data prescribed by directive or ASPR.

The nature of system development is such that

priority of engineering effort is normally directed

at development of operational hardware. Consideration for reproducible measurements that will be

required to support development and testing is often overlooked imtil a crisis arises in connection

with compatibility of test data.

The forecast of such measurement requirements

may require research or development action by the

National Bureau of Standards to establish an appropriate national standard. Also, it will afford

time to develop test equipment to measure the

necessary parameters on a production basis, which

is necessary to the successful production of stateof-the-art components. A hasty selection of in- appropriate equipment could thereby be avoided.

A complete review of the specifications and contract clauses now included in systems development

contracts within DoD is necessary to detennine

whether new contract language or a revision to existing military specifications is needed. The re- vision or expansion of MIL-D-94:12D (Air Force)

to make it applicable to the collection of state-of- the-art measurement requirement data as well as systems calibration requirements information is a

possible solution.

Experience has shown that, regardless of contract method, the forecast of new measurement

requirements is difficult to achieve and often delayed. While the identification of metrology problems to NBS and the service metrology centers has

been accomplished by rather informal methods,

the concern here is with early, and perhaps more

formal identification, so that the lack of ability to measure does not become a deterrent to technological progress or the excuse for lack of ability to determine quality.

Recommendation

It is recommended that DoD prepare contract language and/or a military specification to require

systems development contractors to identify, analyze, and advise the metrology engineering centers,

through the contracting officers, of potential new

state-of-the-art measurement problems early in the

development phase of the materiel.

Selection of Proper Test and Inspection

Equipment and Measurement Processes

Inadequate emphasis is being placed on the

proper selection and support of test and measuring

332h932 O—69 2 11
equipment in research, development, design, production, quality control, and operation and maintenance stages and in monitoring the adequacy

of test equipment and its usage in research and

development activities. The literature and technology of instrumentation is widely scattered and difficult to research;

hence, the selection of instriunents and the techniques for their application are equally difficult. Measurement needs are freqently overwhelmed by

"gold plating" or are only partially satisfied. There

is a need for the generation and publication of technical guidance to provide assistance for optimizing equipment selection. Developers, development agencies, and commodity managers, in their zeal to deploy military equipment to meet requirement schedules all too fre- quently fail to avail themselves of the metrology

competence of standards and calibration laboratory personnel and similar specialists in the selec- tion of test and measuring instruments for the

field. This has frequently resulted in the fielding

of expensive, overly precise, or overly accurate test and measuring instruments.

The losses due to unreliable measuring instruments are inestimable. DoD decision makers must

have reliable, accurate data on which to base their

conclusions and recommendations. The final data

obtained by testing assembled hardware must be

sufficiently consistent and repeatable to prove the

confidence level of reliability estimates. This can

only be achieved through provision of effective

equipment, measurement techniques, and data feedback systems.

Recommendations

That DoD generate and publish a technical

guide for use by Government and contractor engineering personnel to aid in selecting test and in- spection equipment. The guide should emphasize

and/or require the use of metrology and calibration

personnel to aid Government and contractor re- search and design engineering personnel in test equipment selection. That a requirement be placed in individual service regulations or exisiting regulations to insure

that the test and measuring instruments of research

and development activities will be subjected to the same quality control measures as are those in other

phases of the materiel life cycle.

That DoD revise appropriate military specifications to require controls over the selection, per- formance, and application of test equipment in

DoD contracts. That DoD develop a training course for engineering and contract administration personnel in

the selection and application of test and measuring

equipment.

Promulgation of Uniform Specifications

Controlling Contractors' Calibration

Systems

Specifications often referenced or required by

contracts that delineate calibration requirements

are: MII^Q-9858A, MIL-I-^5208A, MIL-C45662A, MIL-C-55163 (Sig. C), MII^Q-21549B

(WEP), NASA NPC-200-1A, NASA NPC-200-

2, MIL-1^5607, MID-I-850OB and MIL-Handbook 50, 51 and 52. These specifications differ as to the extent of the requirements for cali- bration and measurements.

As examples of confusion created, some specifications require adherence to a strict 10 to 1 accu- racy ratio, while others make no reference to such

ratios. Some specifications are not clear as to the

requirements for recording results of calibration.

Other specifications allude to the requirements

for a mandatory recall system whereas still others

are specific.

Due to the problems created. Government contract evaluation agencies find it difficult to enforce

and administer contractual provisions as envisioned by the procuring agencies. It is important that NASA and DoD calibration

system requirements be consolidated into one specification. Many R&D contracts, particularly those

which are for research studies or do not require

fabrication of hardware, do not require control

of measuring and test equipment. In many of these

contracts, measurement data represent the product,

and control of these data is essential. There are measurements being made of physical or material phenomena by R&D contractors which

must be supported by measuring equipment of

known accuracies. In many of these contracts,

measurement data represent the product and control of this product's quality is essential. In addition, some small business contracts do not contain

requirements for the control of measurement devices. Small business contractors are performing

measurements of products with devices which must

also be of known accuracy. Recommendations

That MIL-C-45662A be revised and adopted as the standard calibration specification to be refer- enced in all Government contracts including small

business and R&D contractors where measurements

are to be performed.

That purchasing officers be required by ASPR

or directive to include applicable portions of the

revised specification in addition to the special provisions of Standard Form 32.

Provision of Metrology Support to Contract Administration Personnel

There is a lack of understanding of the need

for calibration and metrology among Government

12
and contractor personnel. To overcome this lack

of understanding, it is recommended that an orientation film and lecture material be developed for

presentation. The Navy and the Air Force both

have films which were developed for the particular

requirements of their personnel. These films have

proved very successful in motivating and indoctrinating personnel in the specific requirements for

calibration and metrology in these military departments. These films could be used as guides in

the development of a new film for presentation on a wider scale. (AF Film SFP-1047 "USAF

Calibration" and USN Film MN-10105 "Wliy

Calibrate';.)

The calibration and measurement specialists in

the cognizant contract administration organizations are trained in the overall evaluation of

contractor's programs. However, there is a need

for specialized support and training in certain

measurement areas such as optics, microwaves,

pressure, flow and others. Training courses are

available in the military services and from commercial sources in most of the specialized areas. A

catalog of available courses should be compiled to provide a ready reference for determining where

specific training can be provided. The military

metrology engineering centers can also provide

specialized training and technical assistance to the

cognizant contract administration personnel.

Recommendations That DoD develop an orientation program for

Government and contractor personnel to provide

general knowledge of the requirements for a cali- bration and metrology program in the contractors'

plants.

That DoD determine specialized training re- quirements for Government calibration and measurements personnel to improve and augment

their capability to evaluate contractors' programs.

A catalog of available calibration training courses should be provided. Whenever the specific capability is not available from the cognizant contract administration organization, the technical assist- ance of the military metrology engineering centers should be requested.

Establishment of a Central Point of

Contact

For the past eight years, the three Departments

and AEC have participated in combined meetings

to discuss mutual problems concerning metrology

engineering and calibration services. These meetings contributed to the important resolution of

several problems which interface with NASA,

AEC, Department of Commerce, and other Government agencies requiring coordination at the

OSD level. However, there is no central point of

contact within OSD responsible for overall policy

for metrology and calibration, or through which

DoD components can present problems involving

coordination with other Government agencies.

There needs to be a designated office within OSD

to provide general policy on metrology and cali- bration and through which coordination can be

attained with Government agencies outside of the

DoD. This action will serve the interest of OSD

as well as the three Departments and DSA.

Recommendation

That OSD designate a specific office within OSD

(DDK&E, ASD (I&L) , possibly the DoD Quality

and Reliability Council) for policy direction and

to serve as a central point of contact for metrology

and calibration matters.

13
METROLOGY AND CALIBRATION CONSIDERATIONS IN INTEGRATED

LOGISTIC SUPPORT PLANS

Stanley Crandon

Deputy Metrology Technical Director, U.S. Bureau of Naval Weapons Metrology Engineering Center,

Pomona, California 91766

Integrated Logistic Support is defined by tlie Department of Defense as a "composite

of the elements necessary to assure effective and economical support of a system or equip- ment at all levels of maintenance for its programmed life cycle." The significant elements

of Integrated Logistic Support are planned maintenance, support personnel, technical data,

support equipment, spares and repair parts, and facilities. The need for timely and in- creased emphasis of calibration and metrology considerations in Integrated Logistic Support

Plans is examined and discussed.

Introduction

Present Department of Defense policies require

the development of integrated logistic support for a new system or equipment concurrently with the

performance requirements or at the earliest possible time in the conceptual phase. To meet this re- quirement, logisticians actively participate in all major phases of development projects—fundamental requirements, feasibility studies, Technical Development Plan (TDP), Project Definition Phase

(PDP), bidders' conference, contract negotiation,

evaluations of proposals, in-process reviews, en- gineering change proposals, and service tests

to assure that logistic support is planned and ac- quired in an orderly and systematic manner.

Considerable importance is placed by the logisticians on the ability to properly evaluate the

readiness of a system to meet its mission requirements, and to perform preventive or corrective

maintenance actions when required. Such actions

require meaningful measurements; however, as metrologists know, meaningful measurements are a combination of many different factors and are not achieved by mandate or directive.

This paper is directed toward the need for early

consideration of metrology and calibration re- quirements in developing logistic suport for sys- tems and major items of equipment and to the

concept of having a professional metrologist

and/or calibration engineer as an active member

of the Integrated Logistics Support Management

Team.

Integrated Logistic Support

A relatively new concept in Department of Defense procurement of systems and material is In- tegrated Logistic Support. DOD Directive 4100.35

defines Integrated Logistic Support as "a composite of the elements necessary to assure the effective and economical support of a system or equipment at all levels of maintenance for its programmed life cycle." The significant elements of

Integrated Logistic Support are

(1) planned maintenance—which includes servicing, repair, inspection, corrosion control, cali- bration, overhaul, modification, handling, and

storage

;

(2) logistic support personnel—covering skills,

performance requirements, training requirements,

human factors engineering, special devices, safety,

survival, clothing, escape and rescue, and stress; (3) technical logistic data and information

which includes, but is not limited to, production

and engineering data, prints and drawings, standards, specifications, technical manuals, inspection

and testing procedures, changes and modifications,

and performance and failure data

;

(4) support equipment—such as special purpose

vehicles, power units, maintenance stands, test equipment, special tools, and test benches used to

facilitate or support maintenance actions, diag- nose malfunctions, or monitor operational status of systems, subsystems or equipments

;

(5) spares and repair parts—used for mainte- nance replacement purposes in major end-items or

for repair of spares of major end-items; and

(6) facilities—including buildings and associated equipment required for, or to contribute to, system or equipment maintenance.

Integrated Logistic Support Plan

Development of an Integrated Logistic Support

(ILS) Plan for a particular end-item, whether

this be an aircraft, missile, computer, navigation

sub-system, or automatic test equipment complex,

is designed to meet the performance and readiness

requirements established by the Project Manager

for the entire life cycle of the end-item. The ILS

Plan is usually developed by the Integrated Log14
istics Support Management Team comprised of

DOD and contractor representatives. Although

the ILS Plan goes into considerable detail for

each ILS element, consideration of calibration is usually restricted to the planned maintenance ILS

element and presented only in terms of defining

the calibration interval and procedure for the

special support equipment provided with the enditem. Because the interrelationships between cali- bration and the other ILS elements are not readily

seen, the calibration requirements are often developed without sufficient regard to such significant

calibration and metrology considerations as meas- urement state-of-the-art, traceability to national

standards, accessibility to calibration and standards laboratories, on-site calibration requirements,

and others.

Calibration Support Plan Matrix

To demonstrate the relationship and importance of metrology and calibration to all ILS

elements, let's assume that the special support test

equipment required for a particular system is an

end-item in itself and develop an ILS plan for it. If we consider each ILS element in terms of cali- bration, and convert each basic ILS element to a

calibration support element, we find that : planned

maintenance = calibration concept; support per- sonnel = calibration technicians; technical data=

calibration data; support equipment = calibration

standards; spares and repair parts=the same; and

facilities= calibration sites. We can now lay out a matrix of ILS ele- ments/calibration support elements versus major

metrology/calibration factors to determine which

major metrology factors should be emphasized

with respect to individual ILS/calibration ele- ments. Figure 1 is the matrix ; it lists measurement

state-of-the-art, availability of national standards,

calibration methods and procedures, calibration

skills and training, timely accessibility to laboratory, built-in standards, portable standards, onsite calibration, calibration environment, calibration data feedback, test equipment and standards

loan pool, and calibration intervals, as major

MAJOR METROLOGY/CALIBRATION

FACTORS

ILS ELEMENT/CALIBRATION SUPPORT ELEMENT

Planned Maintenance

Support

Personnel TechnicalData Support Equipment Spares

and Repair

Parts

Facilities

Calibration

Concept CalibrationTechnicians

Calibration

Data Calibration

Standards

Calibration

Slt4s

Measurement

St ate- of -the- Art

X X X X X

Availability of National Standards

X X X

Calibration Methods

and Procedures

X X X X X X

Calibration Skills

and Training

X X X X X X

Timely Accessibility

to Laboratory

X X X X X

Built-in Standards X X X X X X

Portable Standards X X X X X X

On-site Calibration X X X X X X

Calibration

Environment

X X X X

Calibration Data

Feed back

X X X X

Test Equipment and Standards Loan Pool

X X X X X

Calibration Intervals X X X X X

Figure 1.Calibration support plan matrix.

15
metrolo^ and calibration factors. The X's in the

matrix identify interrelationships between the

major metrology factors and ILS elements. The

placement and number of X's in the matrix will

vary between end-items, especially with respect

to ultimate use of the end-item. For example, a system being placed aboard a guided missile

destroyer on an extended deployment schedule

may well require emphasis in different ILS ele- ments than another system, similar in complexity,

being placed at an ordnance depot in the continental United States. A third dimension to the matrix which is not

shown is cost. The significance of cost will vary

for each interrelationship and it is essential to consider cost-effectiveness trade-offs as well as technical problems when developing the calibration portion of the ILS Plan.

The Metrologist and Integrated Logistic

Support

The interrelationships between major calibration considerations and ILS elements in

the calibration support plan matrix indicate that

as a member of the ILS Management Team, the

metrologist has the opportunity to make substantial contributions to the ILS Plan under development. Some of the problems which the

metrologist will encounter and resolve are as follows

(1) Is there commercial test equipment on the

market capable of performing the required maintenance functions, or will special test equipment

have to be designed and built ? (2) Are the measurements to be made during

operational readiness tests and preventive and

corrective maintenance within the present state- of-the-art, or will a development program for new

measurement capability be required ? (3) Is the designated test equipment sufficiently

reliable and stable to remain within required

operating tolerances during the projected deployment schedule, or will some means have to be developed to calibrate this equipment during deployment?

(4) Is there already adequate test equipment

aboard such that additional equipment is not re- quired, or such that only a minimal amount of

additional equipment is required?

(5) Are the calibration laboratories which are intended to service the vessel or station adequately

equipped with standards and calibration proce- dures to calibrate the test equipment ? If not, what

standards and procedures need to be obtained and

when will they be required ? (6) "What is the effect of the shipboard or sta- tion environment on the test equipment, or on the

standards if on-site calibration is required ?

(7) Is the test equipment designed to permit

"black-box" calibration as well as ready access to adjustment points?

(8) Is the calibration of the test equipment

within the skill capabilities of the personnel ex- pected to perform the calibrations, or will additional training be required?

(9) Are there national standards available to which the measurements made by the test equipment may be ultimately referenced, or should the

National Bureau of Standards be alerted that

reference standards must be developed or improved and made available by a given date?

(10) Should the test equipment be calibrated as a system, as individual components, or as a combination of these extremes ? (11) If the test equipment will require calibration by an off-site laboratory, is the equipment

designed to permit ready off-loading or will the

size, bulk, and/or interconnections to the prime

system require on-site or in-place calibration?

(12) Could the test equipment be designed and

packaged so that self-test, fault isolation, or self- calibration is feasible, thus totally or partially

eliminating the need for calibration support ex- cept for the few built-in standards ? (13) Will the burden of calibrating the test equipment be such that additional manpower will

be needed at the calibrating activity ? If so, when

will the additional personnel be needed? How

many will be needed?

(14) Will additional funding be needed at the

calibration laboratories for standards, manpower,

and facilities to calibrate the test equipment?

(15) To what extent is a calibration data feedback system needed? To adjust calibration intervals? To identify unreliable test equipment? To

effect corrective actions ? (16) Should a loan pool be established for the more critical test equipment and/or standards?

Where should the loan pool be located? How will

the equipment be transported ? The Metrologist Member of the ILS

Management Team

Because of the intimate knowledge required of a military department's calibration program in

terms of laboratory location, standards, personnel,

training, workload, etc., the metrologist member

of the ILS Management Team should be recruited

from the applicable service's metrology engineering center. Since the metrologist member would

have the scientific and engineering back-up of the

entire staff of his respective center behind him, expertise in specific measurement areas is not re- quired. His most important qualifications are knowledge of the service's calibration program,

ability to relate signficant metrology and calibration factors to overall logistic support, and the

capability of thinking clearly, and with acumen.

16
in order to actively participate in various tradeoff decisions concerning maintenance being made

by the ILS Managment Team.

The proposal that the metrologist member of

the ILS Management Team be drawn from the

service's metrology engineering center is not meant

to preclude active participation in Integrated

Logistic Support by the contractor's metrologist

or calibration expert. Although lacking specific

knowledge of the service's calibration program, the contractor metrologist could eliminate many possible future problems associated with the selection

of the support test equipment, especially with re- spect to measurement state-of-the-art, availability

of national reference standards, and test and cali- bration procedures. His technical support of the

contractor's ILS Management Team representatives could be most significant if full use is made

of his knowledge of measurements, test equipment,

and standards.

Conclusions

This paper has attempted to demonstrate that

early, effective, and continuing management of

measurements is an extremely necessary part of

Integrated Logistics Support, and that the best

way to develop and maintain assurance of meaningful measurements throughout the programmed

life-cycle of a new system under procurement is to consider metrology and calibration requirements

when developing the Integrated Logistic Support Plan and to utilize the services of the professional metrologist with intimate knowledge of the

military department's calibration program as a permanent member of the ILS Management Team.

Bibliography

Department of Defense Directive 4100.35, "Development

of Integrated Logistic Support for Systems and Equipments," 19 June 1964.

17

NCSL 68

SESSION 2: NCSL LIAISON DELEGATE REPORTS

Chairman: J. L. Hayes

U.S. Navy Metrology Engineering Center, Pomona, California 91766 THE INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT GROUP OF THE

INSTITUTE OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC ENGINEERS

F. L. Hermach

Chief, Electrical Instruments Section, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C 20234

This important organization of the IEEE is active in promoting technical sessions and symposia, in pubUsMng papers describing technical developments, and in preparing

standards of practice and performance in its field of interest. This is done through its six very active technical committees, which cover the measurement of frequency and time

and of electrical quantities from dc through microwave frequencies.

We are in the midst of an era of marked advances

in instrumentation. Already combinations of elec- tronics and classical measuring techniques

sparked among other things by the operational

amplifier, the zener diode, and inductive and resis- tive voltage dividers—have made possible elec- tronic standards of phenomenal accuracy and convenience. With digital voltmeters or dc and ac volt- age standards, for example, measurements can now be made on a factory bench by persons without special training and skilly with an accuracy

that a decade ago could be obtained only by experienced people in a laboratory environment. There

are parallel developments in every area; from

taut-band instruments to the "Bolovac" for high

frequency and microwave standards. Integrated

circuits and the use of special-purpose computers

with instruments will surely make even greater

advances possible in the near future, to widen the

scope and range of measurements tremendously.

These advances—the spectacular showpieces of

instrumentation—are based on the science and the

art of measurement. Although instruments are used in many fields, and many instruments are developed for specific applications, there is a commonality of principles which forms such a

basis. This is the area of G-IM, the IEEE

Group on Instrumentation and Measurement—

the science and art of measurement, and the instrumentation they bring. G-IM is concerned with

the advancement of knowledge in this area—a part

of the charter of IEEE.

It can do this, and serve a really worthwhile

function, by providing the mechanism for bringing

such advances to the attention of others through

the technical sessions and conferences it sponsors

and through the journals it publishes. It can do

this with high technical competence and authority,

and with a standing which few other journals can

match. It can also provide a forum for discussion

of these advances. As Joseph Henry once said,^

"Frequent interchange of ideas and appreciative

encouragement are almost essential to the success- ful prosecution of labors requiring profound

thought and continued mental exertion. Hence, it

is important that those engaged in similar pursuits

should have opportunities for frequent meetings

at stated periods. Furthermore, a society of this

kind becomes a means of instruction to all its members, the knowledge of each becoming, as it were,

the knowledge of the whole. Besides this, man is a sympathetic being, and no incentive to mental

exertion is more powerful than that which springs

from a desire for the approbation of his fellow

men."

The Group can also advance the science and art of its field by writing standards of performance

and practice for instrumentation. Here the highest

technical competence and the broadest points of

view are essential. G-IM is in an excellent position to meet these

needs and goals. Its history goes back many years

through its predecessors in the AIEE and the IRE.

Thanks to the G-IM Administrative Committees

involved, and to their recent chairmen, Charles

White and George Schafer, it has come through

the period of the merger of the AIEE and IRE

very sound financially and greatly strengthened

technically. There are now six well organized and

' From his address to the Philosophical Society of Washington,

1871.

19
active technical committees in our Group. These

and their 1968 chairmen are

Electromagnetic

Measurements State- of-the-Art Surveys

Fundamental Electrical

Standards

Low-Frequency

Measurements

High-Frequency

Measurements

Frequency and Time

Materials Measurements

M. Selby

J. Eiley

R. Estoppey

R. Soderman

A.Chi

C. Owens

The State-of-the-Art Committee, a continuation

of an Ire Standards Committee, is engaged in sur- veying accuracies and ranges of measurements at the several echelons from NBS standards to shop

and field instruments. By publishing these, it will

inform designers and users of electrical and elec- tronic equipment what accuracies are feasible

today, and, as a corollary, where research is needed

if better accuracies are required for a particular

measurement at the working level. The Fundamental Standards Committee is con- cerned with standards for the basic electrical units,

their derivation from mechanical units, and their

extension in range. The members are writing per- formance standards for resistors and capacitors

of the highest grades, and have close liaison with

the corresponding USASI Cormnittee ClOO.

The Low and High Frequency Measurements

Committees are concerned with advances in the

instrumentation and measurement of electrical quantities from dc through microwave and laser frequencies—all of the spectrum of coherent elec- tromagnetic radiation. There is intense activity in

standards of performance for precision connectors,

attenuators, high frequency inmmittance and

power measurements, signal generators, and the

rapidly growing field of pulse measdirements.

The Frequency and Time Committee is a re- organization and an expansion of the former IRE

work in crystal frequency standards and is con- cerned with atomic standards as well. Frequency

can be measured more accurately by far than any

other quantity, with phenomenal changes recently

and further improvements to come. The Materials Committee has active liaison

with other organizations in magnetic and di- electric measurements.

The expansion and reorganization of G-IM is now almost complete. (In question yet is what its role should be in the field of measuring nonelectrical quantities by electrical means.) G-IM

now needs to expand its services to meet the needs.

This will require changes. For a number of years

G-IM has sponsored instrumentation sessions

(generally more than one) at the IEEE International Conventions, at which important new developments in its field could be disclosed and dis- cussed. These sessions have served as a convenient

"symposium on new advances in instrumentation,"

supplementing G-IM's cosponsorship of the

highly successful Conference on Precision Electromagnetic Measurements held at Boulder, Colorado, every two years. Now, however, the purpose

and focus of the International Convention have

changed. Such sessions for specialists cannot be

held there. Thus G-IM will sponsor its own in- strumentation conferences, probably on the alter- nate years to the Boulder meetings. But this in

tiurn brings other problems. Conferences don't

happen by themselves—considerable planning and

doing are required. Financing the publication of

the additional papers in the G-IM Transactions

(perhaps the most important tangible service)

will be difficult too. The problems which face G-IM are not to be

taken lightly. However, they are encouraging ones, for they are signs of growth and of increased

service. I am sure that G-IM's technical and other

committees will work willingly and competently

to meet them—to help advance the science and art of instrumentation and measurements, and to help

its members keep up with these advances.

20
JOINT ACTIVITIES OF THE INSTRUMENT SOCIETY OF

AMERICA AND NCSL

Orval L. Linebrink

Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio 43201

It is hoped that a bit of reminiscing about

NCSL and ISA-related activities will be con- doned and we also hope will prove useful in the

future. Many of you may well remember the first Measurement Standards Session at the ISA Conference in Chicago in 1959. It consisted of a panel

discussion with W. A. Wildhack as Moderator.

The ISA committee involved anticipated an at- tendance of abo(ut 50, but were amazed when 200

attendees showed much enthusiasm for more

organized technical activities related to precision

measurements and reference standards. The ISA

committee planned a more ambitious program for

the following year in New York and was given

ISA Division Status. The division was called the

Measurement Standards Instrumentation Division (MESTIND for short) , but along with the

popular trend for name-changing, it is now called

the Metrology Division. Its growth and activities at conference and committee levels are now

history.

Most of you are familiar with the growth of the

Metrology Division of ISA, and many of you

have participated and are now involved in its activities as individual members of a technical

society. Simultaneous with the growth of this

division, there developed a growing need for an

organization which would serve standards laboratories and involve its management. Ad hoc committees nurtlured the idea of such an organization

suggested by Mr. Harvey Lance of NBS, Boulder,

and after many severe labor pains gave birth to the National Cfonference of Standards Laboratories. Many of these ad hoc committee meetings were

held at the time and place of ISA Conferences.

Many of the same individuals participated in both.

A significant difference between NCSL and ISA,

which is the result of deliberate design by the

committees, should be kept in mind at all times.

NCSL was planned as an organization of laboratories and is implemented by delegates appointed

by the management of the member laboratories.

In contrast, ISA is a technical society consisting

of individual members who need not and fre- quently do not involve their company or organizations in any way with society affairs. This simple

but basic difference accounts for the fact that

many of you find yourselves in dual roles as member delegates to NCSL and as active members

of ISA technical program activities. This dual

identity makes my position as ISA-NCSL Liaison

Delegate both easy and also extremely difficult. Easy because activities of mutual interest to both

organizations originate in a common mind and

are identical, but difficult because one can identify

the NCSL activities separately from those of ISA

only with some difficulty. This is a condition which

is currently healthy, but conceivably problems

may develop unless distinction is made between

laboratory matters and the technical development

of individuals. My recommendation for the future

is for a maximum of cooperation accompanied

with a full understanding of the policies and purposes of both organizations.

Several specific current measurement standard

activities can be briefly reported at this time.

(1) The C-100 Committee on Specifications of

Precision Standard Instruments has Mr. George

McGee, as a member, representing the Metrology

Division of ISA. Reports of sections of this committee have been released or will be ready soon.

(2) A three-way representation exists in which

DeWayne Sharp, NCSL, represents ISA on an IEEE Committee related to Pulse Techniques. I understand that he expects to attend a meeting of

the International Electrical Commission in Europe in September 1968.

(3) Of much interest to NCSL is the activity

of an ISA committee on Standards Laboratories

Environmental Specifications. This work is under

the leadership of Mr. Wilbert Snyder and is ex- pected to become an ISA Standard. A technical

session related to this subject is being organized

for presentation at the New York ISA Conference

in October 1968.

(4) The NCSL Committee C-7, with DeWayne

Sharp as chairman, is developing some interesting

statistical treatment of calibration reports and

measurement standards data. He will summarize

this in the Committee Report Session of this conference. Several of the full-length technical papers

evolved by this NCSL committee will be presented

at the New York ISA Conference in October 1968,

with Joe Cameron as session developer. Several

additional sessions sponsored by NCSL may be

organized for presentation at that conference.

This dual existence and mutual individual participation in activities is typical of the relationship

of the ISA and NCSL and we hope for a progressive and profitable continuation in the future.

21
THE PRECISION MEASUREMENTS ASSOCIATION

R. B. Ernst

North American Rockwell Corporation (Autonetics Division), Anaheim, California 92803 Although the Precision Measurements Association started as a West Coast organization

in 1958, it is now international in scope with over 1100 members in 18 Sections. The

objectives of PMA are complementary to those of the National Conference of Standards

Laboratories (NCSL). This report highlights the aims of the organization, its relationship

to the NCSL, and examples of PMA activities. The Precision Measurements Association

(PMA) is an international organization with

specific interest in metrology activities. Its principal objective is to advance the arts and sciences

related to high-accuracy measurement by encour- aging the communication of knowledge and the

establishment of recommended practices. It seeks

to

1. Promote unity and effectiveness of effort among all those who are devoting themselves to high-accuracy measurement.

2. Provide necessary and convenient facilities for the holding of meetings of the Association.

3. Provide for reading, publication, and distri- bution of papers and publications of the association.

4. Provide for sub-groups of special interest.

5. Encourage the establishment and acceptance

of uniform terminology.

Relationship to NCSL

The objectives and activities of PMA are complementary to—not a substitute for—those of the

NCSL. The PMA is an individual membership

association, in contrast to NCSL, which is composed of delegates from interested organizations.

Many people who actively represent their laboratories in the NCSL are also active PMA members.

The relationship between the two associations

may be illustrated by the following example : the

company which I represent subscribes to the aim

of the NCSL, viz., to promote cooperative action on common problems of management and operation of measurement standards and calibration

laboratories. Consequently, the company is a member of the NCSL and I have been appointed as the

company's delegate. Thus, it becomes my responsibility to reflect the views of company management with respect to problems under consideration

by NCSL. In general I expect these problems to be "management-oriented" and rather broad in

scope—e.g., involving economic considerations

rather than purely technical problems.

On the other hand, there is a need for continuing

attention to the more technical side of our laboratory activities. The PMA fills this need by providing meetings, on at least a monthly basis, where

methods and techniques of high-accuracy, precision measurements are discussed. In PMA, our

laboratory engineers play a prominent role. NCSL

membership is essentially "closed" to these technical personnel who often assume roles of leadership in PMA. Thus, our company division has one delegate to NCSL, but 43 of our personnel

have become active participants in PMA.

Example of PMA Activities

PMA desires to cooperate with the NCSL to make optimum use of available resources. In Janu- ary of this year PMA and NCSL cooperated in

scheduling an NCLS Workshop which immediately followed the First Annual PMA Conference

in Anaheim, California. PMA has proposed a

similar arrangement for early 1969.

Since 1964, PMA has been a cooperating society

with ISA at their annual Conference. PMA promotes and sponsors metrology courses in high

schools and colleges. Members of PMA are serving on advisory councils to several West Coast col- leges and universities. Scholarships are provided

by PMA to deserving metrology students, and

metrology books have been contributed to college

libraries. The Measurements and Data magazine serves as PMA Journal and provides a medium for members to exchange ideas on measurement methods

and techniques.

Monthly section meetings offer the opportunity

to meet socially and to communicate with people

with common interests. Conclusion

NCSL and PMA objectives are complementary.

Cooperation between these organizations is desirable in order to optimize use of available resources. Tliere are tasks that PMA should undertake be- cause they cannot or should not be done by the

NCSL. Similarly there are tasks which NCSL

must perform because of its unique role as an as- sociation of laboratories and other organizations

with related interests.

22
THE AMERICAN ORDNANCE ASSOCIATION

J. A. Mallison

McDonnell-Douglas Astronautics Company, Santa Monica, California 95006 The American Ordnance Association (AOA)

was founded in 1919 and exists solely for the advancement of adequate national defense of the

United States. It strives to improve the effective- ness and efficiency of the Government-sciehceindustry relationship in the development and production of weapons systems. In fulfilling this objective the AOA acts as a liaison at the management level between industry and Government.

The AOA is a nonprofit and nonpolitical or- ganization of American citizens, and cooperates to every practical extent with other recognized technical and industrial associations in assisting the

armed services of the United States. Its mission is to keep the National Defense strong in peace and

war. Its functions are important and worthy of

support in times of international quiet as in emergency. The AOA presently has more than 3000

individual members and 500 corporate members.

About 100 companies have been corporate members for 25 years or more. The Association endeavors to keep its members

and the public informed on problems affecting

weapons preparedness. It does this through its publications, through its national and regional

meetings, and through tlie activities of its local Chapters and Branches in all parts of the country.

The Division of its Technology and Management

Advisory Service provide advice to Government

agencies in the areas of weapons technology technical support, and defense management.

The Standards and Metrology Division of the

Association has been in existence for more than

23 years. This division exists for the purpose of

advancing the effectiveness and efficiency of the

Government-science-industry relationship in the

development of adequate measurement standards

and technology.

The division officers consist of a chairman, deputy chairman, and secretary, with military liaison

aiad National Bureau of Standards representatives. There are three membership sections

Dimensional Standards Section, Electronic and

Electrical Standards Section, and General Physical Standards Section—each led by a Steering

Committee with a chairman and deputy chairman.

The executiA^e board—made up of the division

officers, the section chairmen, and military representatives—meets once each year to set policy and

plan activities for the coming year. The primary

activity of the division is the annual national meeting of the members of all sections. This is normally

a two-day event consisting of approximately six

general -interest presentations and a panel discussion on the first day, and section workshop ses- sions, a forum, and tours on the second day.

The division also provides technical advice and

consultation to Government agencies in the area

of measurement standards and metrology.

2a
REPORT OF THE CALIBRATION AND STANDARDS PROJECT OF THE

AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION QUALITY

ASSURANCE COMMITTEE

Norman D. Smith

Manager, Metrology Department, TRW Systems Group, Redondo Beach, California 90277 Reviews of Government requirements for calibration systems used by contractors have

covered specifications such as the draft of MII^C-45662B, MIL-Hdblf-52, NASA NHB

5300.2 and AEC RDT-S-905. One major factor disclosed by these reviews is that some parts

of the specifications involve costs which are excessive in relation to the resulting effects on

calibration and product quality. Another factor shown by these reviews is that contractors may be handicapped by having to cope with several different specifications from different Government agencies, as well as having to change parts of their calibration systems to conform with specifications telling how something should be done in addition to telling

what should be done. Still another area of concern is the continuing and increasing attention

to the area of calibration, thus tending to obscure the end result which is required, i.e., accurate measurements and tests in the plant and in the field. The variety of ways in which tolerances are established seems to be a root cause of many of today's measurement and calibration problems, including the increasingly high

costs of obtaining "required" accuracies. In many cases, tolerances seem to be established without proper evaluation of the need versus the cost of maintaining the tolerances in manufacturing and quality control. Better cost visibility, such as might be obtained through

design cost guides, seems to be one way of attacking this problem.

Review of Government Requirements

Comments on the MIL-C^5662B draft were

discussed at Sperry Gyroscope on April 25, 1968.

The AIA recommendations took into account com- ments received from 46 companies and were submitted to Lt. Col. P. L. Horn, Jr., Director U.S.

Army Metrology and Calibration Center, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, on May 13. The most compelling factor behind the recom- mended changes is that of quality versus unnecessary cost. The MIL-C-45662B draft would have

caused calibration cost increases which would far

outweigh the resultant small improvements in

calibration and product quality. The recom- mended changes were intended to provide a quality

calibration system at minimum cost. It was also recommended that the title of this specification

be changed from Metrology System Requirements

to Calibration System Requirements in that this

specification should not attempt to cover the entire

field of Metrology.

Many of the recommended changes were based on the idea that the specification should provide

requirements for "what"' must be done, not "how"

it should be done. The restrictive nature of "how"

something must be done would force many facilities to change operating practices, many of which

are currently acceptable and some of which are more sophisticated and efficient than the required

changes.

Perhaps the greatest number of comments received from member companies related to words

or phrases difficult to define, or worse, capable of

many definitions. For this reason, they were

deleted until such time as the new revision of

Handbook 52 is available for guidance.

Project team comments on MIL-Hdbk-52 were

submitted to the Army Metrology and Calibration

Center in January 1967. Since that time a revision

of MII^Hdbk-52 has been in work. The AIA

Quality Assurance Committee has requested

the draft for review. To date, the AIA has not

received the issuance.

The Army, Navy, Air Force working group on

calibration procedures agreed with the AIA rec- ommendation for clarifying the intended use of

MIL^C-24133 for procurement of calibration

procedures as end items, and concurred with the

idea of avoiding unnecessary adjustments, but

including adjustment information where essential to the calibration. Because of the complexity of

the subject the Army, Navy, Air Force working

group decided that adjustments should not be in- cluded in the specification. That is, there will be no change in regard to adjustments.

Additional work was done during the past five months on AIA comments on the NASA NBH5300.2, Apollo Metrology Requirements Manual.

AIA Quality Assurance Committee members are concerned Avith the need for standardization of

government specifications and interpretative documents such as NBH-5300.2. This manual is a move in the opposite direction, forcing contractors

24
to establish either an excessively elaborate system

or more than one calibration system in order to

satisfy the requirements of both DOD and NASA.

NBH-5300.2 is an interpretative or handbooktype of document. It is intended to provide the

clarification for Apollo system contractors and

the requirements contained in NPC-200-2, "Quality Program Provisions for Space System Contractors." NBH-5300.2 applies to all centers, sites,

and their prime contractors who are responsible

for the selection, evaluation, approval, calibration, maintenance, and control of standards and

measuring equipment. The scope of the manual

includes development and control of calibration

practices for standards and measuring equipment

used to determine the conformance of Apollo

hardware to design specifications.

Atomic Energy Commission Specification

RDT-S-905 "Calibration System Requirement" is a simplified version of DOD-specification, MILC-45662A. It consists primarily of excerpts from

MIL-C-45662A with minor editorial changes.

The major differences between the two documents

are as follows : All references to government or government representatives were replaced by the

term "purchaser" or "representative of the purchaser"; all references to contractor were deleted

and replaced with the term "manufacturer"; the

definitions section was placed after Scope rather

than at the end of the specification; a definition

for accuracy was added but seemed unnecessarily

complicated; the definition for measuring and

test equipment was amended; and details were

deleted regarding the method of changing calibration intervals and the description of records re- quired. The requirement for the contractor to make objective evidence of accuracy conformance

readily available to the government representative was deleted, and a reference to foreign contracts

as applicable to calibration sources was deleted.

The above changes with respect to MIL-C45662A are not considered objectionable. The AEC

document was probably prepared to fill an AEC

need for consistent but less stringent requirements.

A contractor who is in compliance with MILC-45662A would certainly be in compliance with

the AEC document. It is not known whether AEC

intends to maintain consistency with MIL-C45662A by revising RDT-S-905 in accordance

with changes in MIL-C^5662A. If RDT-S-905

is not revised accordingly, there will be a tendency

to move away from the AIA desire to standardize

government specifications.

Tolerancing Practices

A literature survey has been made listing 130

references, 32 of which deal specifically with

tolerancing practices. No one comprehensive

reference has been found. Instead the references

are fragmentary and specialized, usually cover- ing just one aspect of tolerancing, or treating

tolerancing briefly as part of some other field. In general, cost reductions seem likely through

the use of improved tolerancing practices. Rule-ofthumb techniques seem to be used most frequently

in establishing design tolerances. "Wliile this may

save time initially, excessive safety factors often

result in high manufacturing and test costs. Jobwise, the final setting of tolerances is often considered to be a clerical function or a low-level

engineering function. AIA feels that a high degree

of engineering skill is required in selecting toler- ances so as to minimize costs without degrading

product quality and reliability. In addition to the

commonly used rule-of-thumb techniques many

other types of tolerancing techniques are refer- enced in the literature. These other techniques

include statistical tolerancing, true-position toler- ancing, graphical (vector) tolerancing, worst-case

tolerancing, and tolerance-chart techniques. During Project AIA team discussions, certain problem

areas in applying good tolerancing practices have

been defined

:

• Cumulative tolerances, for mating parts for

systems of varied parts. • Understanding of measurement concepts such

as accuracy versus precision; confidence level of

measurements ; measurement of uncertainty. • Limitation imposed by measurements at the

state-of-the-art; defining the various states of the

art ; theoretical limits of measurements. • Scaling down.

• Significant figures ; rounding off of numbers. • Allowances for instrument uncertainties. • Design tolerances versus manufacturing

tolerances versus test tolerances.

During the past year inquiries were made of sev- eral member companies concerning the problem of

tolerances and costs. Replies received indicate that

there is considerable interest, and a great deal of

concern, in the subject of close tolerances and their

relationship to costs. It was stated in one reply that the placing of a

tolerance on the design caused a number of related

decisions to be made simultaneously

• The process which shall be used to manufacture the part may be dictated by the tolerance. • The type and cost of tooling is decided. • A "make or buy" decision may well hinge on

the tolerance involved. • The kind of quality control and the amount of

inspection and test is certainly responsive to the

tolerances. • The "back-up" capability in the calibration

laboratory is defined.

There are examples cited where close tolerances are specified because they work on an engineering

prototype or the tolerance was chosen from the in- strument manufacturer's specifications on the test

25
equipment used. Later evaluation often shows that

the device or system worked equally well with less stringent tolerances.

Another area which has been discussed is the

utilization of metrology or test engineering specialists in the area of technical design reviews.

Some companies have found this approach to t effective in establishing realistic tolerances befoi

manufacturing problems arise. It seems that : would be beneficial if tolerances were reviewed b

measurement specialists as early as possible in tli development phase of a program.

I

26
NCSL 68

SESSION 3: NBS ACTIVITIES

Chairman: J. L. Hayes

U.S. Navy Metrology Engineering Center, Pomona, California 91766 THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF MAKING MEASUREMENTS

Howard E. Morgan*

Technical Analysis Division, Institute for Applied Technology, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 Concepts of economic value are defined and their usefulness in determining the economic value of measurement data are Indicated. Resources in the National Measurement

System and various classes of users are described to provide a context for examining eco- nomic value. The role of measurement data in decision-making is suggested and the economic consequences of decisions are indicated. The effect on economic value of alternative measurement sources and reliability is described. Economic value (benefits) and cost are distinguished. The application of these concepts is illustrated using results of case

studies of measurement projects at the National Bureau of Standards.

I. Introduction

A conference which has as its theme "Making

Valuable Measurements" ought to have at least one paper which inquires into the meaning of the

word "valuable." It is the intent of this paper to define "valuable" and to indicate how one might

measure the value of "valuable measurements."

One of the 1966 Conference Speakers^ Mr. W. G.

Amey, urged NCSL to form a committee to determine "how to evaluate the value of measure- ments" [Amey, 1967] . An earlier Conference report

announced the formation of an "NCSL Special

Committee on Calibration Cost Reduction and

Value Analysis" [Panel on Standards Laboratory

Information Dissemination]. Apart from these

fleeting references to the value of measurements,

the Conference reports are barren of substantive

discussion of economic value. Interest in the value of making measurements

probably has increased since prior conferences.

Many NCSL members appear to be in firms deriving substantial amounts of their revenues from

government contract work in space, defense, and

atomic energy. Current public debate over the value

of science programs and government budget constraints are forcing NCSL members in both government and private laboratories to examine the

cost and value of measurements. It seems appropriate, therefore, to ask v;hat we mean by "valuable measurements" and to suggest ways of measuring the value of these measurements.

In a market system where measurement services are provided in a competitive environment in re- sponse to prices paid by users, price is an indicator

* Mr. Garry Crane provided welcome assistance in the

discussion of several concepts appearing in this paper. The author alone, however, is responsible for the contents.

of economic value. But measurement services are provided largely in a nonmarket environment by

government laboratories or by inhouse laboratories

serving business firms of which they are a component. Market price, the traditional indicator of

economic value, is absent. It is then necessary to derive substitute indicators of economic value.

The discussion proceeds by asking first lohat

kinds of measurements are made and lohy they are made. We then define economic value and indicate

the economic consequences of making or not making measurements. The argument is largely con- ceptual in that the emphasis is on how to determine

economic value. A few examples, based on recent

studies of NBS measurement projects, are provided

where appropriate. No attempt is made here to indicate the total economic value of measurement

data. This requires a larger study using some of

the concepts developed here.

II. What Measurements are Made?

The National Measurement System

The National Measurement System for the

measurement of physical quantities was described

in some detail at the 1966 conference [Huntoon,

1967]. Essentially, this was postulated as having

two interacting systems : (1) an intellectual system

having a body of principles arranged in rational

coherence, and (2) an operational system having

elements to perform functions needed to achieve

national goals. The intellectual system consists of

a coherent set of measurement units in which the

properties of materials and the performance of

devices and systems are given (quantitative values.

From the basic measurement units for length, mass,

time, and temperature come a host of derived measures for characterizing a variety of substances

3a2-.932 0—160^ 3 27
and systems ranging from simple to complex. The

operational system was described as the combination of consistent instrumentation, reference data,

and techniques of measurement used by people

performing measurements or using measurement

data to achieve the purpose of their organizations.

The intellectual system provides the rules and

conventions which guide the operational system.

Which of these aspects of the National Measurement System is of interest here? "\Vliile the

intellectual and operational systems are interdependent, economic interest here centers in the

operational system because it uses resources such

as instruments, data, and manpower. A change in

the rules of the intellectual system may create changes in the operational system which may then

affect the economic value of the measurement sys- tem, e.g., a shift fi-om astronomical to atomic time.

Essentially, the resources whose value is in question

are the instruments, reference data, and skilled

manpower in the operational measurement system,

of which NGSL members are a part.

III. Why Make Measurements?

Measurements and Goal Achievement

Measurements provide information which assist people in making decisions required to reach a goal

or objective. For the average human, his senses provide most of the information needed for the

host of decisions he makes each day (e.g., when to go, where to stop, what to eat). For the scientist or engineer, human senses are seldom capable of

describing the attributes of a substance, device sys- tem, or phenomenon with sufficient exactness. In

this situation, his decisions must rest on instruments which transform and magnify these attri- butes into readings which are quantitative and

reliable. Kinds of Decisions Resulting from

Measurements

Information provided either by instrument readings or by reference data is used to make two

kinds of decisions, namely, those which (1) alter the method of attaining a given objective, or (2)

undertake the attainment of new objectives.

In making decisions of the first class, the usual

aim is to accomplish the given objective at least cost by substitution of a measurement activity for some other resource. Examples are measurements

made in navigation, manufacturing processes, or the reading of an auto speedometer. Here, tradeoffs are being made; measurements are being substituted for fuel or manpower in navigation; for raw materials in production; for police action,

auto repair, medical facilities or lost income result- ing from nonobservance of speed limits.^

' In some cases, measurements will reveal that the ob- jective cannot be achieved without adding another re- source (e.g., more fuel to reach a destination as a result

The second kind of decision resulting from meas- urement data may provide new goals, which may

include doing something not previously considered

possible or which eliminates that which had been

considered possible. For example, measurements

may provide information about a single attribute or about various functional relationships (basic

principles or laws) among attributes of a

substance, device, system, or phenomenon which

leads to a decision to do further research or to develop the concept into some useful application.

The use of measurements in basic research illus- trates this kind of decision (e.g., the reduction of

uncertainty in time and frequency measurement

helped make space navigation possible). Here,

measurements are complementary with other re- sources; i.e., additional resources are needed to achieve the new objective which has emerged. An

entirely new set of resources may be called forth

to procluce a new kind of output.

In summary, the essential economic difference

between these two kinds of decisions lies in the

nature of the objective. In general, where the objective is given, measurement data permit the

the saving of other resources (i.e., productivity

is improved). Conversely, where new objectives

result from the use of measurement data, additional resources are used (i.e., total output is ex- panded). While there are qualifying assumptions

as indicated in IV below, one may tentatively con- clude that measurement activities are resource saving or resource vising depending on whether

they provide information relevant to existing or new objectives. This has important implications

for economic value—a term which will now be

defined.

IV. What Is Economic Value?

Economics is concerned with the production and

allocation of resources to satisfy human wants. Value is a measure of worth, utility or importance

which users assign, consciously or subconsciously,

to resources capable of satisfying their wants or

objectives and which partially determines the pat- tern of resource use. Value normally is measured

numerically in money terms (cardinally), but also

may be measured ordinally as relative utility when

indicated by an opinion survey. In measuring value it is necessary to distinguish

between value to individual users and value to

society—the latter may not equal the sum of the

former because complex secondary effects in the

economic system may exist. In the discussion which

follows, the relevance of value to objectives _ is noted and the distinction between value to in- dividuals and value to society is retained. This

of a navigation measurement). Failure to add that re- soiirce may mean failure to reach the objective. Note, however, that a trade-off still exists between the measure- ment and other resources (e.g., failure to add fuel may

cost extra manpower or lost equipment time before the

destination is reached).

28
dichotomy also is perserved while suggesting ways

of measuring the economic value of publiclyfinanced measurement data. The section concludes

by observing that economic value and cost are not

the same. Value and Objectives

It was suggested above that the value of measure- ment data may depend on whether they provide

the user with a better way of reaching a given

objective or whether it leads to a decision to undertake a new objective. What are the general objectives of individiud users in a capitalist economic

system ? It is usually assumed that consumers of final goods seek personal satisfaction of wants through

consumption; the objective is to rmximize tlie satisfaction of wants. Producers of goods for sale in the market wish to maximize profits (total reve- nues less total costs). The value of measurement

data to each will depend on the extent to which

these data contribute to want-satisfaction or profit

respectively. Methods for determining economic

value to individual users in money terms (e.g.,

dollars) require a consideration of resources saved

or used in reaching objectives, as suggested above

and described in more detail below.

The aggregate economic value of measurement

data is not simply the sum of values to individual

users, because of complex interactions in the eco- nomic system.2 Furthermore, aggregate economic

value must be determined with respect to goals of

society, some of which may be economic, political,

humanitarian or technological. For example, eco- nomic goals may include economic growth, price

stability, full employment, maximum efficiency in

producmg a given output, or income redistribution; goals which may require science and technology, as for reachmg the moon or reducing

environmental pollution. Given one of these goals,

the economic value of measurement data will be

the cost of resources saved by substitution of these

data in reaching the stated goal.

Where multiple social goals are present, someone (Congress representing the people?) must in- dicate priorities—this is a political or policy choice.

Because a shift in the use of other resources oc- casioned by new measurement data may atfect prices for those resources, the economic value of

economic value is conceptually easy to define but

empirically difficult to determine. From a public

policy point of view, particularly when valuing

measurement data employed for one goal will

affect the employment and value of resources used

to attain other goals. Consequently, aggregate

^ These complex interactions generated in the economic

system can be simulated using an input-output matrix of the national economy to estimate the probable effect on

national income and the demand for the output of other

industries. If the final product or service using measure- ment data is not sold at a market price (e.g., defense

capability), the aggregate social value must be approxi- mated by other methods suggested below.

publicly-financed measurement data, aggregate

value is of greater interest than value to individual

users. But the latter is easier to determine than

the former.

Value to Individual Users

It has been noted above that there are two classes of users: (1) producers of goods and services and

(2) consumers of final goods and services. Production is for consumption usually after sale to others in a market economy, although it includes

the provision of goods and services by government

(often at a zero market price). Because the goals

of producers and consumers differ, the methods

of valuing resources used by each also differ. These methods are now described.

Value to a Producer.—Economic theory tells us

that a profit-maximizing business firm will buy more and more units of measurement service until

its differential cost equals the associated differential revenue from the sale of its products.^ The

value of a unit of measurement service under perfect competition equals its contribution to sales revenue, technically known as "value marginal

product" (VMP).* The value of an input under

perfect competition will equal its cost only at that

level of product output which maximizes profits

for the firm.

NCSL members within business firms (in-house)

may be able to obtain estimates necessary to per- form this calculation.^ To do so requires knowledge

' A unit of measurement service may be defined as a single reading on an instrument, a single datum, or any observable measurement.

* The value of the measurement service is its contribution to value marginal product (VMP). Algebraically:

VMP=MPPXP, where P is the price of a unit of output

and MPP is defined as the extra physical output resulting

from the addition of another unit of input. A related and

frequently used concept is "marginal revenue product"

(MRP). MRP= VMP + where is the price elasticity of demand for ouptut x and «i assumes values of -a<6,<0.

^ For example, assume that output is engineering

consulting services and that input is measurement data

where

:

Qi = number of units of measurement data. ^2 = number of units of consulting service. Pi = price of a unit of measurement data. P2 = price of a unit of consulting service. TR = P2XQ2

Engineering Consulting Service Measurement Data Profit Output and Revenue Input and Cost MPP Pi TR VMP Qi Pi TC (TR-TC)

0 $3 $0 $- 0 $20 $0 $0

10 10 3 30 30 1 20 20 10

19 9 3 57 27 2 20 40 17 27 8 3 81 24 3 20 60 21 34 7 3 102 21 4 20 80 22 Max.

40 6 3 120 18 5 20 100 20 Note that profit (TR-TC) is at a maximum ($22)

when 4 units of measurement service (Qi) are used to produce 34 units of output. (^2)- Note also that at this point the price of a unit of input (Pi = $20) approximately

equals its value marginal product ($21). The addition

Footnote continued on following page.

29
of the technological contribution of the input to output, willingness to pay for various quantities of

output, and the unit price of an input. It may be

found that the measurement service has a value

which differe from its actual cost to the company.

Hopefully for NCSL members, value will exceed

cost. Note that VMP theory assumes that : (1) inputs

other than the one under consideration are absent

or that their prices and quantities are held constant conceptually, and (2) the quantity of output

may vary, but not its quality. If these assumptions

are relaxed, actions resulting from the kinds of

decisions described in Part III may be taken (i.e., resource-saving decisions which effect improvements in the method of reaching given objectives,

and resource-using decisions to achieve a new

objective).

In the preceding example (footnote 5) , a relaxation of the second assumption permits decisions to change the quality of output associated with

measurement input (e.g., the use of measurements

may influence a decision to add other outputs, such

as engineering services, or to claim higher reliabil- ity for the services now sold). The value of meas- urements now is indicated approximately by their

contribution to additional sales revenue arising

from changes in the quality of output.

By relaxing the first assumptoin, measurement

data can influence the use of other inputs which

now can vary in price and quantity and be traded

for measurement data. Since knowledge of the

complex relationship between inputs and output

of the firm may be absent, one can conceptually assume output constant. Now the business firm will,

if substitution is technologically feasible, be willing

to pay for measurement data an amount just short

of that saved by not using the cheapest alternate

inputs to reach the given output or objective. This

is a simple trade-otf in which measurements are

substituted for other inputs which represent re- sources saved. The value of other resources saved

is the value of the measurement data. In practice,

output may be fixed by contract specifications or

other market considerations. Hence, the constant output assumption may often reflect reality. Savings which accrue to the firm may result in profits

which represent a return on equity capital or higher returns to labor or to other inputs." Other

forms of income redistribution may occur and national income may be higher or lower, depending on the prices of and demands for other inputs.

A relaxation of both assumptions permits all in- puts to vary in price and quality and outputs to

of a fifth unit of measurement service would cost $20

but return only $18 in revenue (FMP). The example

can be extended with greater complexity as assumptions

are relaxed (e.g., variable input and output prices and

quantities of other inputs)

.

° Historically, 99 percent of productivity gains have

accrued to labor. See : John AV. Kendrick, Productivity

Trends in the U.S. (Princeton Univ. Press for the National Bureau of Economic Research, 1961), pp. 129-130.

vary in quality. While the VMP concept is not now

entirely applicable, it offers an approximation

sufficiently general for estimating the value of

measurement data to a producer of goods or services sold in a market. With both inputs and out- puts variable, measurement data may influence

decisions which save or use resources.'' Whether or not such changes in the use of re- sources are desirable from the viewpoint of society

cannot be determined without having a statement

of social goals as criteria. If efficiency (productivity) is a prime goal, those decisions which save

resources required to achieve a given objective are

socially desirable. On the other hand, if a growth

in national product and employment is a goal of

society, resowce-using decisions are preferable.

In reality, of course, we have many social goals, some of which require resource usage and others resource conservation.

Value to Consumers.—In ascertaining the value

of measurement data to individual consumers, we

must distinguish between: (a) measurement data

used directly by consumers and (b) final goods or

services used by consumers and which employ

measurement data in their production. For example: (a) is illustrated by time or weather reports or by auto diagnostic data for the personal use of consumers, while (b) is illustrated by the purchase

and use of an automobile or watch in whose manufacture measurement data were used. Since these are quite different concepts, methods for determining the value of each will differ. However, as noted earlier, value must be defined in terms of an

objective; the goal of consumers is to maximize

the satisfaction of wants. The value of measurement data used in the first situation (i.e., directly by consumers) will be the

extent to which these data enable consumers to save other resources in attaining a given level of

satisfaction, or to use other resources in reaching

a higher level of satisfaction.® The value of the

measurement data again will be the money value

(price X quality) of resources saved or used in

the two cases. As individuals, we theoretically

would be willing to pay an amount (price x quantity) for measurement data just short of the cost

' Technically, measurements will lead to decisions which

produce a substitution effect or an output effect upon other inputs required to produce the old and new output level or quality.

* If the measurement data were purchased at a price in a market (or if we consider the depreciation and operatting costs of previously purchased instruments), price

normally declines with the quantity purchased (see foot- note 9). This produces what is technically known as: (1) a substitution effect (more of the data are consumed as

price falls), and (2) an income effect (the resulting

higher real income permits consumers to buy more of other resources). Depending on assumptions, the substi- tution and income effects will differ in relative imx)or- tance. Consumers presumably gain more satisfaction or

utility as a result of the two effects. Note that market

price paid for measurement data represents the costs, but not necessarily the value to the consumer (see dis- cussion of consumer's surplus below)

.

30
of alternate goods and services, given some desired

level of satisfaction (e.g., auto speed data are worth some amount up to the cost of traffic fines for speeding). Here, a trade-off is made between

i measurement data and other resources. In contrast, if fuel gauge readings indicate that we have

sufficient fuel to take a side trip which consumes more fuel and increases our total satisfaction from

I the trip, the value of the fuel measurement data

is equal to the cost of extra fuel and other re- sources needed to make the side trip.

The value of measurement data used in the sec- ond situation (i.e., the production of final goods

or services used by consumers) is more difficult to determine because we are now considering sec- ond or higher order economic effects, rather than

primary value to individual users who first employ the data directly in production or consumption. If all outputs were final goods or services, we might approximate the value of measurement

data used in their production by calculating the

VMP of measurement data for the producer. The

result would indicate roughly how much consumers value (at cost) the additional output produced

with a unit of measurement service. But, this

represents costs of the final goods to a consumer at market price and not necessarily its value to him

in use. Furthermore, measurement data are used

in the production of intermediate goods which

then become an input in the production of other

goods ; the problem of double counting then arises. Consequently, other methods must be used to measure these secondary effects.

Aggregate Economic Value

The prior warning about the need to value re- sources in terms of the objectives for which they

are used is repeated here. In discussing methods

for determining aggregate value, it is assumed

that consumer satisfaction is to be maximized and

that an increase in goods and services consumed

will raise the level of satisfaction. This raises

thorny questions about kinds of output and social

goals: these problems are handled by the stated

assumptions and treated as political or policy is- sues beyond the scope of economic analysis.

Two methods for approximating the aggregate

economic value of measurement data are: (1) the

concept of consumer's surplus, and (2) input-output analysis. Both require detailed information

about the way measurement data are used and in- formation about the demand for final goods.

Consumer's Su7'plm.—Economic theory recognizes the concept of consumer's surplus, which in- dicates the value of goods or services to consumers

over and beyond the market price paid for them.

Economic value must now be thoughtof as a "block

of goods" produced by an industry (a group of

firms) and for which a group of consumers pay

or are willing to pay various prices for various

quantities.

Two associated concepts of value are discernible

here: (1) value in exchange (market value), and

(2) value in use. The first is the familiar concept

where value is measured at market price paid (in

money terms) for a given quantity of a product.

The second measures the worth or utility of a product to users as reflected by their willingness to pay for each of various quantities. The law of

diminishing marginal utility suggests that unit

price and quantity are inversely related and,

therefore, the price-quantity curve is negative in

slope.^

Since value in exchange (at market price) nor- mally will be less than value in use (willingness to

l^ay), a difference (known as consumer's surplus)

will exist. Technically, consumer's surplus measures value which users obtain and for which they

would be willing to i^ay more than they actually

pay, rather than go without the product. In other

words, a user in a large market is able to buy at a market price which is lower than the price he

would be willing to pay if he were the only pur-

° The figure indicates these concepts graphically. Points on line DD represent the price which users would be

willing to pay for each of the various quantities on the

horizontal scale. The rectangle OQiSPi indicates total value in exchange (market value) on the assumption that

Qi was sold at a price Pi. Value in use (willingness to pay) is indicated by the area that is under that part of the DD line between 0 and Qi (the sum of the shaded

triangle and the rectangle). Here value in use exceeds

value in exchange and a consumer's surplus exists in the shaded triangle.

PRICE

0 0, QUANTITY

31
chaser. This is an important feature of a modem

exchange economy ^here we gain by trade.

Note that changes in market value {ATR) will

equal the sum of the value marginal product

( VMP) of all producers of the final product. Thus,

the VMP of an additional unit of measurement

data used to produce a final consumer's good equals

the additional dollar outlay {cost) which consimiers pay at market prices to get the extra output. The value of this additional quantity to con- sumers is indicated by the increase in willingnessto-pay {AWTP). Although difficult to measure

empirically, WTP gives an approximate indicator

of the aggregate value of measurement data to consumers of final products in whose manufacture

these data are used.^" Input-Output Analysis.—An input-output

matrix of the national economy can be used to estimate the probable effects of measurement on

other parts of the economy by computer simulation techniques. This requires that industries us- ing measurement data be identified and that we know how decisions resulting from such data effect other inputs. Changes in these input industries can then be simulated to estimate changes in out- put industries and national income. With adequate

case studies of the uses of measurement data and

refinement of the input-output matrix, this method offers promise of considerable usefulness in the

future.

Value of Publicly Produced or Used

Measurement Data

To what extent do the concepts of value described above apply to measurement data or services provided or used by public agencies? Since

both the measurement data and the end product

with which it is associated often are provided at a zero price to the public, how is value determined ? Value to a Using Agency.—Some NCSL members are in government laboratories whose mission

requires the use of measurements. Where the mission uses data as an input, its value is determined

^° Two possible approaches are : ( 1 ) conducting opinion surveys whicli aslc users about their willingness to pay

under various assumptions, and (2) measuring changes in prices and quantities of goods or services in whose production measurement data are used. Where these final goods

have a market price, the change in willingness to pay

attributable to new measurement data is approximately

equal to the product of the average price and the change

in quantity sold. Symbolically : ^WTP=(^^'^ (Q,-Q,)

where: WTP= willingness to pay

Pi = price of final product before new measurements P2= price of final product after new measurements Qi= quantity of final product sold before new meas- urements ©2= quantity of final product sold after new meas- urements

as in the business firm : value equals value marginal product (VMP). But, because the output of

the government agency may not be sold at market

prices, VMP may not be ascertainable; consequently, it is necessary to assume output constant and inquire about the value of trade-offs

among inputs. For example, the value of NBS

measurement data furnished other government

agencies approximately equals the cost of alter- nate inputs which would be required to reach the

given objective of the using agency. If on the

other hand, measurements should lead to a decision

to change objectives, their value to the using

agency again is indicated by the VMP of the

agency output if sold at market prices.

Aggregate Value of Puhlicly Financed Measurements.—All of the preceding discussion of

value also applies to measurement data produced

in tax-supported laboratories and used by private

firms or consumers. However, since these data are not normally sold at a market price, the concept

of VMP is not applicable unless we use the actual

cost of producing the data as a proxy for market

price. An approximation to aggregate value, fre- quently used in calculating the value of public

water projects, uses a modification of the VMP

concept: the value of a public project in national

income terms equals the total revenue from products produced with the aid of the public project,

less the cost of all resources other than the public

project required for their production.^^

But, this is deceptively simple and may not be

determinate because we again need to know the

market values of outputs produced with the meas- urement data and the associated changes in the

cost of other inputs. If the simplifying assumption

of constant output is used, the value of measure- ments again becomes the trade-off value of substitutes. The fact that fees or user charges are paid by

users for the publicly furnished measurement data

has no bearing on their value. If the fee is less than

the price which users are willing to pay, redistribution benefits arise. These are benefits (e.g., profits)

which accrue to the user and represent his gain

at the expense of others who do not use the public

service directly. However, if there are no barriers

to the adoption of measurement technology and

if markets for final products are competitive, nonusers of the measurement data may derive benefits

in the form of better products at lower prices. Redistribution benefits may be justified as a reward

to certain users who stimulate technological

changes which produce external economies (i.e., price reductions or quality improvements indi11 V=TR-Co

Where:

V= aggregate value of the public project.

TR= market value of final products produced with the

public project.

Co = market cost of all resources other than the public

project.

32
rectly caused by measurement data and which in- crease aggregate national income or social value).

Before leaving the topic of publicly produced

measurement data, note should be made of the dis- tinction between its value (V) and cost (Cg). The

total cost (Ct) of aJl resources used to produce

final products is the sum of the cost of producing

measurement data at public expense (Og) and

the cost of all other inputs, public and private

(Oo). The net value of the data will be V— Og.

Since, as indicated above (footnote 11), V=TR —

Co, the net value (V-Cg) =TR- (Co + Og) . Because value and cost frequently are confused, this

point is extended below.

Benefits and Costs Distinguished

Some argue that measurement data are worth

at least the price paid by the user. This argument

is valid only when data are sold in competitive

markets and when value is defined as "value in

exchange" (i.e., buyer cost = value in exchange at the market price). However, it has been argued

above that "value in use" may be the more useful

concept for valuing measurement data (which are seldom sold in competitive markets). "Value in use" provides an indicator of what measurements

are worth to users in terms of their capacity to help

attain user objectives efficiently. Measurement

data constitute only one among many input cate- gories and their cost may differ from their value in

use.^^ Since value in use (benefit) often differs from

value in exchange (cost) rational buyers will compare carefully benefits with costs before making a purchase. It probably is naive to assume that con- sumers of final goods or even producers of complex intermediate products are completely rational

in their choice of measurement services. Technological and other noneconomic considerations

undoubtedly play an important role in the purchase decision. Yet, economic cost and value also "undoubtedly do influence the allocation of re- sources used to provide measurement data, particularly when funding is scarce.

" For example, assume the following to achieve a given

output

:

Other + Measure- = Total inputs ments Cost Cost of: Before measure- ment change $50 + $50 = $100

After measure- ment change 20 + 75 = 95 Change (-30) + (+25) = (-5)

Measurements now cost $25 more and generate a savings

of $30 in the cost of other inputs, with a net reduction of $5 in total cost. Theoretically, the user would substitute measurements for other inputs in any amount up. to a cost

of $100 as long as savings in the cost of other inputs (value of measurement) exceeded the increase in measurement

costs.

A Digression on the Sources and Reliability

of Measurement Data

The previous discussion has assumed that all types of measurement activity are similar in their

economic effects. A closer examination reveals that

there may be significant differences which affect their economic cost and value. One must therefore

be concerned with alternatives loithin the measure- ment system. There are at least two questions about

measurement data which deserve attention in this

respect: (1) What is its source? and (2) How

reliable is it? Sources of Measurement Data. Measurement

data may be obtained by making measurements

with instruments or by using data compiled by

others who previously had made measurements

with instruments. If there had been no previous

work in a field of interest, the scientist or engineer

must purchase or develop the necessary instruments, calibrate them against an acceptable standard and proceed to make the required measurements. Where others had made similar measure- ments and recorded them in published form, they

may be used after critical evaluation by a competent authority. Thus, there is a trade-off between

making one's own measurements versus accepting

data which already exists. Such critically evaluated

data are produced by several government and aca- demic institutions whose work is coordinated by

the NBS National Standard Reference Data System. A similar trade-off exists between transportable instruments which are calibrated against an NBS standard and statistical measurement data

exchanged among laboratories in a self-calibration

program.

To the individual user of data, the cost of making one's own measurements may be large and

prohibitive ; the cost of published reference data is negligible. For the nation, the total economic cost of reference data may be substantially less than

the cost of making new measurements of materials

whose attributes are already established. To the

extent that the former source of data is less costly

than the latter to yield the same technical results,

reference data may be substituted for other inputs

with a consequent change in the value of the data.

The Vahie of Measurement Reliability. Similarly, there are trade-offs between the reliability

demanded of measurements and the use of other

resources. Reliability has two aspects : (1) accuracy

(compatibility with a standard) and (2) precision

(consistency of successive readings). Unreliability or uncertainty results from systematic or random

errors in both accuracy and precision. Tlie uncertainty of a measurement may affect its value since

the quantity of other resources used may depend

upon measurement uncertainty.

Uncertainty in the measurement process arises

from variability which may be inherent in the in- strument or data and from the human factor

through use of instruments. This variability, along

33
with the variability inherent in the characteristics

of the i^roduct or process being measured, is re- flected in the standard deviation (o-p) of a fre- quency distribution of the mean of successive

readings.

To improve the yield of input resources in a production process (i.e., to save resources needed per

unit of output ), a reduction in measurement uncer- tainty is required. This might be achieved by

reducing the uncertainty of measurement by using

instruments or data having greater precision or by reducing Inmian error in measurements. Either

of these should reduce the standard deviation of

observations and permit closer control of the process. Improved measurement instruments or techniques represent improvements in the "state of the

art" which may affect the cost (price) of a "unit

of measurement sendee" and its value as indicated

by changes in the use of other resources. In some situations the precision of measurement

may be improved by increasing the number of

measurements, rather than by changing measure- ment techniques. Wliere a product has given specifications (e.g., 1 mm Avith a tolerance of 0.01 mm)

and where quality is measured by samiDling a lot, improved quality assurance may be attained by in- creasing the number of measurements (i.e., sample

size), given a specified standard deviation of

process and instruments.^^ Here, the cost of meas- urements may increase due to increases in the

nwnber of measurements made. Again, as in the

preceding case where the quality of measurement was improved, the cost of the reduction in uncertainty must be compared with the value of other

inputs saved as a result of the reduction in

imcertainty.

Another aspect of precision concerns the range

of magnitude and precision required at each order

of magnitude. It is generally recognized that

measurements of extremely large or extremely

small magnitudes involve correspondingly greater

uncertainty than magnitudes in the middle range

(Huntoon, 1966). As the demand for greater precision increases at: the extremes of magnitude, the

costs of achieving it rise sharply (Huntoon, 1966)

.

The economic question then becomes one of asking

whether the new final product (objective) for

which this precision is required is worth the cost of measurement, or whether trade-offs between

" The standard error of the process is indicated by:

where:

<rj.= standard error of the mean of the samphng distri- bution. (rp= standard deviation of the product or process mean

inckiding uncertainty of measurements.

71= sample size (units of measurement service). The standard error (specification) may be improved (re- duced) by decreasing o-p (by improving the precision of measurement) or by increasing n (by taking more samples

using given measurement techniques).

higher precision and other inputs appear to promise savings in achieving a given output.

V. Empirical Measurement of Economic

Value

To determine the economic value of measure- ments requires : ( 1

) case studies of specific applications, or (2) statistical data which indicate how

measurements inay have affected firms or industries. The latter are seldom sufficiently detailed to permit meaningful generalizations. Although census and other published data permit one to describe the boundaries and magnitude of the

measurement system, they do not readily permit an analysis of the economic effects of measure- ments." Consequently, the case-by-case approach

is required to indicate the economic value of measurements. While this does not indicate the aggregate value of the measurement system, it is useful

to managers in making choices involving measure- ment resources such as instruments, data, and

people. To illustrate this approach, some results based on studies of seven NBS measurement

projects are summarized here.^^ Since all seven of the projects were publicly

financed through NBS appropriations or by funds

from other agencies, the appropriate formula for

indicating value is: V=TR— Oo (see footnote

11). Because each study was made by a physical

scientist familiar with one specific project, no uniform method of evaluation was used. Consequently,

the projects will be evaluated in the context of this

formula.

Four of the seven studies measured value as changes in sales revenue (aTR) derived as a result of applications of new measurement techniques

or data. In these, measurements led to decisions to produce new products (outputs) or to make

technological changes in products or processes

(i.e., measurements were resource using). Such

outputs incorporated measurement developments

in which the NBS participated and which were

sold in the marketplace by private fii-ms: (1) high

accuracy time and frequency receivers and oscillat- ors, (2) precision coaxial connectors, (3) semiconductor materials, and (4) liquid petroleum gas

(LPG).

The value formula also requires knowledge of

the cost of all inputs other than the measurement

resource (Co). This was not obtained in these four

projects, with the exception of development costs associated with the time and frequency equipment

and investments in LPG meter calibration equip-

"A comprehensive analysis of the manpower and instru- ment industry components of the measurement system was

prepared by Wilbur H. Eskite. Jr., in an unpublisher paper

entitled Studies of the National Measurement System at the NBS in 1966. This paper provides data indicating the

cost, but not the value, of the measurement system. " See .John T. Yates, Jr., and Howard E. Morgan,

"Exploratory Studies of the Benefit-Cost Measurement in Research and Development" (to be published)

.

34
ment. Consequently, the value of publicly funded

measurement (V) cannot be determined from the

formula. The use of market sales data (TK)

alone tends to overstate the NBS contribution.

Three of the seven studies provided data which

indicate the extent to which measurements were

resource saving (i.e., measurements led to decisions

to use less of other resources) . These projects illus- trate improvements in productivitiy of products

or processes required to reach a given output or objective. Private firms produced the following

products or services sold in the marketplace; (1)

thrust measurement transducers, (2) iron and

steel, and (3) railroad and trucking services. Since changes in sales were not reported in these

cases, TR is assumed constant in the value formula. Changes in the cost of some other inputs (Co)

associated with measurement changes were re- ported for these three projects. The value of the

NBS contribution (V) could have been determined, if all costs (public and private) other than

the NBS project costs had been included. Since

they were not, the NBS contribution again camiot

be determined by this formula.

In summary, none of the seven studies provided

all data needed to estimate the value of the NBS

measurement work. However, these studies have

been valuable in indicating the kinds of economic

effects generated by measurement data and alter- nate ways of measuring their value. The results

represent crude estimates of direct henefits to users who are (with the exception of the LPG project)

producers of goods or sendees. Indirect benefits to society were not meaisured here; this requires

indepth studies to ascertain the effect of changes

in outputs on willingness-to-pay or on national

income as indicated earlier.

VI. Conclusions

It is relevant and useful to NCSL members and

those who employ their services to determine the

economic value of making measurements. Resources used to provide measurements (instruments, data and people) have costs which do not

necessarily reflect their economic value. Users of

measurement data must consider the value of

measurements when providing funds for measure- ment work.

Measurements are made primarily to provide

information which leads to decisions which: (1)

alter the method of attaining a given objective or

(2) result in new objectives. These two kinds of

decisions have implications for the detennination

of economic value. The alteration generally is re- source-saving while new objectives are resourceusing.

Whether or not something has value depends

upon its contribution to a goal or objective. Economic value requires that a resource have utility or a capacity to satisfy user wants or needs. Although utility is not easily measured empirically,

the concept of willingness-to-pay permits an in- dication of economic value on a demand function

in which price and quantity are the parameters.

If goals are economic and if the contribution of

measurement data to changes in willingness-topay for final goods can be ascertained, a crude

indication of aggregate economic value can be

derived. "Where market prices of measurement re- lated goods are known, input-output analysis may

permit one to indicate net economic value by trac- ing through the consequences of interaction in the

economic system.

In contrast with the determination of aggregate

value, the economic value of measurement data to individual users who are producers of goods and

services is their marginal revenue product. This

is defined as the change, in total revenue from the

sale of goods and services by a profit-maximizing

producer, induced by an additional imit of meas- urement service. Private firms having knowledge

of how costs and revenues change with output can

detennine the value of measurements by determining their marginal revenue product.

Where measurement data are supplied at public

expense by government laboratories, their value

to individual private firms is again their marginal

revenue product. Their aggregate economic value can be approximated by a modification of the value

naarginal product concept : aggregate value equals

the extra revenue from the sale of goods produced

with the measurement data, less the cost of all in- puts other than the measurement data whose value

is being determined. The change in sales revenue

attributable to the measurement data equals the

change in willingness-to-pay, if the product or

service is a final good bought by consumers. Both

of these methods require that products using meas- urement data be sold in the market at known prices.

In the absence of market prices, product prices

must be imputed ; or one can assume that price and

quantity of the product remains unchanged, then

proceed to ask what changes occur in costs of

inputs other than measurement data.

The latter implies that measurement data are resource-saving and that their value is the reduction in the cost of other resources used together

with measurements to produce the given output

(objective). Where prices and quantities (or quality) of out^iut change, the value of measurement

data reflects the net effect of other resources used

and saved in the production of the output. In short,

the economic value of measurement data is determined largely by changes in the cost of other

resources with which measurements are used to produce goods and services.

S5
Bibliography

Amey, W. G., "Why Don't They Do Something?" Proceedings of the 1966 Standards Laboratory Conference, Misc. Pub. 291, National Bureau of Standards, pp. 5-7 (Washington:

Government Printing Office, 1967)

.

Huntoon, R. D., "The Measurement System of the United States," Proceedings of the 1966 Standards Laboratory Conference, Misic. Pub. 291, National Bureau of Standards, pp. 89-98 (Washington : Government Printing Office, 1967).

Panel on Standards Laboratory Information Dissemination, Proceedings of the 1962 Standards Laboratory Conference, Misc. Pub. 248, National Bureau of Standards, p. 124 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1963).

36
MAXIMUM USE OF EXISTING ACCURACY IN MEASUREMENTS

Robert S. Powers

National Bureau of Standards, Boulder, Colorado 80302 As demands for measurement accuracy get more and more severe, it becomes necessary

at every echelon in the national measurement system to examine known sources of uncertainty more carefully and make the most efficient possible use of the knowledge so gained.

This means not only careful examination and treatment of random variations, but equally

careful consideration of whatever may be known about the bias (or systematic) uncertainties. Determining limits to be placed on the magnitudes of bias uncertainties is often one of the most frustrating of the metrologist's tasks, since information on which to base

calculations or measurements is often simply not available. In many of the measurements made by the Boulder Laboratories of NBS, especially the electronic measurements, it is these bias uncertainties which are the major source of uncertainty. Accordingly, we have begun a vigorous program designed to provide users of such measurements with much more detailed information about both random and sys- tematic errors which cam affect the results. The eventual goal is for reports of calibration

to include not only a brief discussion of each source of error which has been identified, but

also an explanation of how the individual uncertainties have been combined to give the estimated overall uncertainty. Standard measures of imprecision, such as the standard

error or the standard deviation, will be provided separately.

Such detailed reporting will allow the user to examine for himself the error sources considered by NBS, so that he can use that information to his own best advantage. For

example, in case the user is primarily interested in measurement agreement between his laboratory and another, rather than in the absolute value of the measurand with respect

to the basic quantities, he may be able to ignore sources of uncertainty which serve only

to link the NBS measurement to the basic quantities, but which would remain constant

for all similar calibrations done by NBS.
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR NBS OUTPUTS

Eldred C. Wolzien

National Bureau of Standards, Boulder, Colorado 80302

Introduction

"Wliat's new?" is a widely used foTm of greeting. Since many of you have not visited NBS

during the past two years, I shall presume that

you are asking that question, and I will try to give

you some answers. But you also ask us many times

"Why do you do what you do?" That question is much more difficult to answer and is, in many ways,

far more important. I shall speak to these questions by describing some of the new directions we are facing as a re- sult of forces caused by major current problems.

I would also like to sketch quickly what these

forces are and what some of their effects are on

the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) as well

as on other elements of the National Measurement

System (NMS).

Major National Problems and Effects

on the NMS

Our major national problems generate forces

which mold the shape of the NMS and many of

its specific activities. In general terms, these problems may be catalogued as social, technological,

and money problems. It is interesting that the

acronym of these words is STAMP; we might

visualize this "stamp" in many shapes and sizes being applied to form the outline of the National

Measurement System.

Social Problems

Let us look briefly at the effect of social ])rdblems on the NMS. In broad terms they are the

problems of peace, poverty, pollution, and population. They have had various effects on the activities of technolog}^ A positive effect has been the

increasing dependence on teclinology, for the solu- tion of these problems. However, a negative effect has been the development of a dissatisfaction with

technology, resulting from a widespread feeling

that technology has failed to meet public needs.

And so, forces appear to which we, as part of the

general field of technology, must respond. NBS,

like all institutions, must reconsider its role in

contributing to the solution of these overriding

problems. We must ask: "What should our program be?" And we must expect it to change. For we are learning, as it has been said,' "that the very

processes and institutions of science and learning,

and of technology, will have to change and be

modified as the effects of science and technology

become socially more important."

Technological Problems

Technological problems form our second cate- gory. In technology itself changes are constantly

occurring as a result of rapid advances in establishing scientific and technical areas. These, too, produce problems and forces affecting the National

Measurement System. For example, both science

and engineering are tending toward the study of more complex systems. Not surprisingly, such sys- tems increasingly involve interdisciplinary inter- action between traditional fields such a biology

and physics. In electronics this trend toward complexity is illustrated not only by the spreading

application of electronics to new fields, but by the

increasing emphasis on complex technical problems such as the deteimination of electromagnetic

compatibility, spectrum analysis, and pulse characteristics. These subjects are not replacing the

traditional electronic quantities but are supplementing them.

Further program changes are required by the

development of new scientific subjects and the fast growth and changing nature of a technical field. For example, we find in an area such* as electronics a diversity of applications leading to an increasing number of new measurement problems.

Again, we must ask : "What should our program

be?"

Money Problems

Now, let us go to our third major problem. As a

result of our social problems the nation has developed a serious money problem. This, with a change in attitude toward science, has produced a leveling off and changing in emphasis of Federal

R&D spending. No matter how important we may consider our program to be, we cannot gain

support, for it unless we can show clearly that our

efforts contribute directly or indirectly to progress

benefiting the whole country. What can we do

about all this? We must ask more often and more

38
carefully : "What is the right problem and what

is the right contribution we should make to the

solution of that problem?" Or, "Wliat should our program be?"

These are the major problems generating forces

affecting the environment within which we work.

Now, specifically, what are some of the changes

in the National Measjurement System and in NBS,

which these forces stimulate ?

Effects on the National Measurement

System

In order to answer this question we must first try to examine the potential contributions of the

NMS to all problem areas. Such an overall view

immediately shows us many areas suffering from

the lack of good measurements and suggests remedies for these measurement needs. These involve

the following actions

1. The NMS must be coupled more effectively to fields involved with national goals, such as medicine, transportation, oceanography, education, urban improvement, defense, space, and

economic growth.

2. Like all social systems, the NMS is also a people process. Merely providing good instruments, data, and techniques is not enqugh. People

make the system go, and the effectiveness of the

system is directly dependent upon the measure- ment knowledge and skills of these people. Therefore, they need the right kind of information and

training.

3. With changing customer needs, methods of

disseminating accuracy and measurement knowhow must be constantly evaluated and optimized.

4. Outputs must be tailored, to the most urgent

needs in order to utilize all available resources most

efficiently.

5. The development of new technical areas re- quires the establishment of new understanding,

techniques, and services. New Responses of NBS to Measurement

Needs

We are now ready to discjuss some of the NBS

activities which are aimed at satisfying part of

these needs. Those which I shall cover are carried on f)rimarily by the Bureau's Radio Standards

Engineering Division. More of such activities are described by other NBS speakers.

In general, we are increasingly concerned with

the overall needs of the NMS in our subject areas, with what is the right problem, with making our program most relevant to national objectives, and

with providing more local services. Medical Electronics

An increasing need to which we are giving more

attention is that of improving physical measurements in medicine and biology. For example, a great amount of attention has been centered re- cently on radiation hazards caused not only by

ionizing electromagnetic radiation but by sound

and non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation such

as that from microwave and laser sources. Three

bills - aimed at protecting the public health from

radiation emissions from electronic products have

been presented to the Congress for consideration.

Much concern has been expressed about potential

dangers from certain types of this radiation. For

example, microwave systems are becoming more

and more a part of ojur way of life, not only in

communications and industry but in our homes

where even microwave ovens are being used.

Whether or not serious dangers may be caused by

such applications is often difficult to evaluate.

And even though microwaves are known to be

dangerous under some conditions, much still needs to be learned about their effects. A recent report stated : * "Although the biological effects of

microwaves have been studied, certain areas, such

as the possibility of cumulative effects from subthreshold exposures, functional changes from low

intensity irradiation as reported by the Russians

and possible nonthermal changes need further

clarification. Large gaps also exist in the current knowledge of possible genetic implications and

the actual long-term effects, if any, of microwave

radiation on humans."

In order to evaluate such hazards and the biological effects of microwaves and other non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation, it is necessary first to measure this energy. This measurement must

often be made in near fields at frequencies and

levels where not all of the required instrumentation and techniques of sufficient sensitivity and ac- curacy exist. However, NBS has the capability to develop the needed measurement standards, techniques, and instrumentation for this purpose. It can direct attention to this problem, and so, contribute strongly to the solution of an important

health problem.

In other medical areas—such as the monitoring

of patients, diagnostics, bio-research, and sophisticated applications for special space and undersea

programs—improved electronic measurement

know-how appears to be urgently needed. But new

hurdles also show up. Getting physicians and elec- tronics people to understand each other is still a problem.

At present we are becoming acquainted with the

problems, the organizations, and the people in- volved in medical electronics so that we may determine the best ways to apply our capabilities.

Dissemination of Measurement

Accuracy

As the state-of-the-art changes in each technical area and as measurement needs appear and dis- appear, new methods of disseminating measure39
ment accuracy must be considered. Recently, with

support from the Air Force, a new radio standards

comparator was developed. The comparator of- fers a new approach to the problem of transfering accuracy to the ultimate user. This approach

utilizes four different but simply related quantities

(such as power, voltage, current, and impedance)

to provide the redundancy required for monitoring

the value of the four quantities. When it is pro- perly applied, it can increase the reliability and

accuracy of measurement at any level, and at a

substantial reduction in the cost of maintaining

the system. The concept is directly applicable to any measurement system which offers a number

of quantities which are properly related. Further studies are also being made of the

several approaches available for disseminating

standards and for comparing measurement processes. The relative merits and costs of these ap- proaches are being determined on the part of both

NBS and the customer. With this information we

aim to determine and implement the optimum

methods for disseminating measurement standards. Training

Another direction which is being emphasized is that of increasing the effectiveness of personnel in

the National Measurement System. As we look

at the NMS it is clear that it depends upon

people—people who possess the right kind of in- formation and skills. Later in this Conference you

will hear Mr. Anson describe our new Radio

Standards and Measurement Information Center

with its emphasis on the selection, evaluation, and

production of information.

NBS is also planning an expansion of Handbook 77 to an NBS Special Publication 300 on

Precision Measurement and Calibration. This will

consist of 12 volumes and an index. You may obtain complete tables of contents by writing to Dr.

H. L. Mason, National Bureau of Standards,

Gaithersburg, Maryland.

Not only, however, must the right kind of in- formation be developed and disseminated, but at- tention must be given to the training of practicing

metrologists. According to Professor Guilford,*

"many educators have assumed, at least implicitly,

that if we provide individuals with information

they will also be able to use that information productively. Building up the memory store is a neces- sary condition for productive thinking, but it is not a sufficient condition, for productive abilities are relatively independent of cognitive abilities.'' NBS has long promoted and provided limited

training experiences for persons interested in precision measurements. Yet, thousands of people who

make measurements, at least occasionally, are not

able to attend these sessions, or find available adequate substitutes. Most of these people are technicians or non-measurement specialist engineers.

Furthermore, measurement activities and needs

are growing while the supply of properly trained

engineers and technicians is dwindling.

If the Bureau is to fulfill its responsibility in

the NMS, it seems that it must give a proper

amount of attention to the training and upgrading

of the practicing metrologists. Certain aspects of

this training can be given only, or at least best,

by NBS. For example, many state-of-the-art

measurement techniques have not been fully documented and can best be taught or described by

the cognizant' measurement specialists. Wherever

other organizations can provide aspects of this

training, NBS must recognize and encourage such

activities. An overriding constraint on the Bureau's

participation is that it cannot afford to dilute

greatly its basic job of generating and maintaining measurement capability and know-how ; otherwise it would have no basis for its service. With

this limitation in mind, we are looking at major

parts of the problem of training practicing metrologists in the radio standards area—namely, the

trainee, the curriculum, and the methods—to see how NBS might best help improve the quality of

this manpower.

The Trainee

In considering the trainee, we find that a wide

range of potential types and qualifications exists

from beginning technicians to graduate engineers,

all concerned with measurements not only in the

physical sciences but also in the life sciences and

other fields. Although we are concerned first with

the the personnel in the calibration laboratories, we must remember all personnel who contribute

to the effectiveness of the NMS—those persons

applying measurements in research, development,

design, production inspection, operations, maintenance, repair, monitoring and control programs,

and teaching. Even the general public can profit

from a better understanding and appreciation of

measurements.

The Curriculum

In measurement curricula new subject requirements continuously appear as the technology and

applications change. This poses a problem in tai- loring training to very specific needs. Nevertheless,

there also seems to be a widespread requirement

for certain fundamental subject matter to be in- cluded in the training of almost all of the students

described earlier. Developing this material may

be a task best performed by NBS. The content of

this subject matter is as follows:

(a) Principles and basic concepts of measure- ment ; (b) Basic techniques with information to facil- itate a selection and instrumentation of the best

technique for a given application;

(c) Evaluation of uncertainties, showing types

of errors, their effects and treatment, and the inter- locking of quantities;

40
(d) Sources of relevant information—organizations, persons, and references—where more

measurement know-how is available.

The Methods

A third part of the problem is that of determining where, when, and how the training is to be provided. It is clear that the practicing metrologist will have to grow and absorb new concepts

and new tools as they become available. This

educational process will have to be a continuing one rather than a cramming effort once every five or ten years. Business recognizes this requirement

for its employees and is working hard at the task. It is estimated ' that business in the United States

is spending 30 billion dollars annually for on-thejob training of workers. In spite of our tremendous

investment in training we still do not know how

to do the job with predictable results. A recent study ° showed that 'our present and most pressing

problem is the lack of an empirically validated

theory of teaching, and, in fact, instruction that

could form the primatives of a theory of teaching.

This is not to say that we lack teaching practices

that are widely used." It goes on to say that exist- ing data cannot be used to demonstrate the greater

effectiveness of one practice over another.

Training Problems and Possible Solutions

At this point let me summarize the training

problems we now see. They may be listed in this

way:

Under student-related froblems: • Many persons with different backgrounds and

objectives, applying measurements at different

levels of sophistication • Poor motivation of students.

Under curriculum-related 'problems'- • Inadequate training materials • Out-of-date subject matter • Inadequate identification of subject matter • Narrowness of materials • Need for fundamental material.

Under method-related froblems: • Unclear objectives. • Poor educational techniques.

Under program-related problem's: • Unqualified instructors. • Insufficient courses in view of levels, subject

matter, and numbers of students. • Unavailability of on-site training. • Lack of continuous training opportunities. • Insufficient coordination and coupling betweeii sources of information and distributors of information in government, industry, and schools. Now, what might NI3S do to alleviate these problems and upgrade the training of people in the

NMS ? As I said earlier, we cannot handle the complete job; there are many possible tasks. Here are some which we are examining with reference to the

problems which I have just stated. We might

:

• Design and/or conduct packaged courses, seminars, workshops, laboratory experiences, and

work-study programs. • Produce texts, films, slide-tape sets, video

tapes, traveling exhibits, programmed instructional materials, home-study courses, and tutorial

bulletins. • Provide tele-talk contact with measurement

experts, TV instruction, wired blackboard instruction, question and answer service, mobile class- room, rental service of materials, traveling teaching team, and self-help information on references

and courses. • Encourage intern programs in industry and

government. • Encourage better courses in schools and train

teachers of such courses. • Establish cooperative programs with industry, other government agencies, and schools. We have had some experience with many of these

activities and, at present, are carrying on an evaluation of these tasks. We are also planning some

experimental seminars to be given in different parts

of the country for the purpose of training practicing metrologists who live in those areas. Conclusion

In conclusion, I have discussed some of the major

problems and forces which affect the National

Measurement System. And I have described some

of the ways in which NBS is responding. Now,

what lies ahead? As I see it, all elements of the

NMS must bear responsibilities in tackling these

problems. NCSL can share in developing the aims

of the NMS and in contributing constructive action

toward fulfilling such goals. You can help us in

NBS get good solutions to the right problems by

providing a feedback of information on needs and

the effectiveness of our programs. As we continue, we can expect to develop a better understanding

of the NMS, but we can expect it to appear ever- more complex. A general criterion has been noted ^ that "in order to get more capable systems, be they

things or people, the system must become more complex. Usually what we mean by increasing complexity is deeper specialization and better

interaction between the specializations and better

coupling to the unique purpose."

References

1 statement by Dr. Emmanuel G. Mesthene. Technology Assessment Seminar. Proceedings before Subcommittee

on Science, Research, and Development of the Committee

on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives, Ninetieth Congress, 1st Session, Sept. 21-22, 1967, No. 7, U.S. Government Printing OlRce, p. 20.

2 Three bills : S. 3211, an Administration-sponsored measure introduced March 21, 1968; S. 2067, a measure

introduced July 10, 1967; and H. R. 10790, a measure

introduced March 21, 1968, and passed by the House.

3 Biological Aspects of Microwave Radiation—A Review

of Hazards by Wellington Moore, Jr., U. S. Dept. of HEW,

41
Public Health Service, National Center for Radiological

Health, TSB 4, July 1968, p. 25.

* Intelligence Has Three Faces by J. P. Guilford, Science, 10 May 1968, p. 619.

5 Personnel Policy, Issues and Practices by George S. Odiorne, Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1963, p. 227. Quoted in Business and its Environment, by Keith Davis

and Robert L. Blomstrom, McGraw Hill Book Co., 1966,

p. 146.

6 The Myths of Educational Technology by Anthony G. Oettinger, Saturday Review, 18 May 1968, p. 91. The Evergreen Life, Banquet Address by Jack A. Morton, Proc. 20th National Conference on the Administration

of Research, 1966, p. 133.

42
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE NBS BOULDER LABORATORIES

T. M. Flynn

Institute for Basic Standards, National Bureau of Standards, Boulder, Colorado 80302

The business of the National Bureau of Standards is standards ; i.e., measurement

compatibility on a national and internattonal scale in science, commerce, and world trade. The business of the Institute for Basic Standards of the NBS is standards (measurements)

in the basic phy&icai quaiiLiLieo. Mere we describe the roles of five Divisions of the IBS that are in Boulder, Colorado : the Radio Standards Physics Division, the Radio Standards Engineering Division, the Time and Frequency Division, the Laboratory Astrophysics Division,

and the Cryogenics Division. Key words: Standards; measurements; time and frequency; plasma physics; astro- physics ; cryogenics.

1. Introduction

Dr. Astin has essentially four technical resources

that he may turn to in fulfilling the mission of the

National Bureau of Standards. These are the

Center for Radiation Research; the Institute for

Applied Technology; the Institute for Materials

Research ; and the Institute for Basic, Standards.

The last, IBS, has elements both in Washington

and Boulder, and employs about 38 percent of the

entire permanent staff of the Bureau. The staff

at Boulder numbers nearly 600, about 16 percent

of tlie entire Bureau.

The elements of the IBS which are in "Washington are the

Office of Measurement Services

Office of Standard Reference Data

Applied Mathematics Division

Electricity Division

Metrology Division

Mechanics Division

Heat Division

Atomic Physics Division.

Their titles are descriptive of their activities. And the elements of the IBS which are located

here are the

Radio Standards Physics Division

Radio Standards Engineering Division

Time and Frequency Division

Laboratory Astrophysics Division (JILA)

Cryogenics Division.

We also have here the services of the

Administrative Services Division

Instrument Shops Division

Plant Division.

The business of all these Divisions of NBS is standards, i.e., measurement to assure compatibility on a national and international scale to

' assure the progress of science and the flow of commerce and world trade. They work within and

help to lead a "system," the National Measurement

System.

It is easy to conceive of the national postal sys- tem or the telephone system for, to use either of

these, the individual participates in a network

which can be readily visualized. There is another

system, however, larger than either of these in

both dollar value and number of users, which is seldom visualized. It so permeates our society that

it is taken for granted. This is our system of

measurement. In referring to the National Measurement System, we think of the sum of all those

organizations, individuals, and resources that are devoted to providing measurements to the entire

Nation. The primary conceptual goal of a national

measurement system is compatibility—the actions

and decisions of every participant (individual or organization) should be effectively suited to the

needs of his environment. It is the business of the

National Bureau of Standards, and of these

Divisions in Boulder, to assure the efficient and

effective operation of the National Measurement

System.

As within the nation, so within the world—to avoid chaos there must be a single, complete,

and consistent measurement system which meets

societal needs. International uniformity of meas- urement helps U.S. industry expand into foreign

markets, helps the armed forces obtain reliable

services overseas, and makes possible international

exchange of scientific data.

Let me now highlight the role that each of the

Boulder Divisions plays in assuring the international compatibility of measurements.

2. Radio Standards Physics Division

The first is the Radio Standards Physics

Division. It is a resource group concerned pri332-t93i2 O—^69 i 43
marily with the interaction of coherent radiation

with matter. Its role is to develop and maintain

leadership in measurement techniques in this area

for NBS, for other Government agencies, and for

industry.

2.1 Quantum Electronics

One of its major programs is in Quantum Electronics. Here the emphasis is on laser power and

energy standards. We have developed an energy

standard for pulsed laser systems. Development

of power standards for both pulsed and con- tinuous-wave (cw) laser systems is in progress. Industrial and defense laboratories which seek

calibration of commercial laser calorimeters need

the results of this work. We are currently developing a calibration service for them.

Another major program involves laser techniques applicable to freqiiency and wavelength

standards in the infrared and visible regions. Here

a stabilized HCN laser is of considerable interest as the basis of a possible frequency and voltage

standard.

The Division also does research in modulation

techniques, such as microwave modulation, harmonic mixing, and parametric amplification. These

will be useful to both communications and computer technology.

2.2. Plasma Physics

In plasma teclinology, we wish to generate uniform, reproducible plasmas which can be used as standards for making measurements here and else- where. In our work on Plasma Diagnostics, we

are developing means for measuring plasma

parameters.

Given meaningful measurement techniques, one

can work in the area of Plasma Mechanisms. By

this, we mean interpreting the fundamental atomic

and molecular processes in the plasma medium

from experimental plasma measurements.

2.3. Solid-State Electronics

Our research in solid-state electronics is to a

large degree an extension of our work with lasers. For example, one needs to understand detector

mechanisms, to get at their frequency response, and

to develop fast-response, sensitive detectors in the

infrared region.

Similarly, we are concerned with modulation

mechanisms. For example, one needs to understand

scattering and other loss mechanisms that affect the efficiency of modulator crystals.

3. Radio Standards Engineering Division

The Kadio Standards Engineering Division pro- vides the central core of the Nation's system of

measurements at radio frequencies from 30 kHz

to 300 GHz. This is one part of the total system

of physical measurements upon which the Nation's

| commerce, science, and industry depend. This Divij sion supplies the measurement foundation for the I electronics industry and the many varied uses of its | sophisticated products. Every electronic device

represents a terminus of the network originating

here.

j Let us look briefly at some of the areas served

directly

• National Defense: Command, control, guidance, detection, surveillance, destruction,

deception • Space: Voice, telemetry, guidance, control,

detection, tracking • Air Navigation and Safety : Communication,

radar, navigation, guidance • Safety from Electromagnetic Hazards: Personnel, detonation of weapons

• Commerce: Industrial manufacturing, Comsat, telecommunications • Scientific Research : Measurement technology.

Indirectly, the Division also serves

• Computers: Manufacturing and process control, product design and scheduling, data

processing, management information systems,

information retrieval, research • Consumer electronics: TV, radio, hi-fi and

stereo sound equipment, tape recorders, etc. • Public safety : Aviation, law enforcement, fire, civilian defense • Health : Electronic medical instruments.

3.1. Standards

Most prominent among the roles that the Radio

Standards Engineering Division (RSED) plays

is that of furnishing standards which provide a common reference point, available to all. The Division does this in three steps: (1) it decides what

standards are needed, (2) it establishes and maintains them, and (3) it makes them available to science and industry through its calibration services. The science of metrology has been advanced

here to become an almost unique asset in the United

States, and a large program for the calibration of

transfer standards is carried on. It is easy to see the chaos that would result in our highly industrialized nation if mechanical

parts made in Rhode Island did not fit machines

assembled in Wisconsin. Complex mechanisms de- i

mand components of the highest accuracy, and i mass production completely depends on interchangeability. The problems in electronics, communications, and radio are similar to, but much

more complex than, this mechanical example.

3.2. Measurement Techniques

A second important role is to develop ways to make exacting electromagnetic measurements. In

work of this sort, the value added exceeds the

cost only when such an "unprofitable" job is done

44
by a central laboratory. The point is that cost is incurred only once by the central laboratory, but

value is amplified many times when this laboratory

provides technical knowledge and assistance for

I solving measurement problems.

One example of this is measuring the radiation

pattern and gain of large-aperture antennas, such

as those used for earth-to-satellite communications.

The far-field region, which is the important characteristic, may exist at distances of say 10 to 20

miles. Earth-based measurements of the actual far

field are not useful due to terrain effects, and satellite or high-flying aircraft measurements are both

expensive and unreliable. Therefore, one wishes to predict the far-field performance from groundbased measurements of the near field up close to the antenna. This Division is developing such a

technique, in the hope that a measurement made

from an elevated platform at a distance of per- haps hundreds of feet can replace problematic

measurements at tens of miles. Potentially this

technique can serve Comsat, DoD, NASA, the

radio astronomers, and others—none of whom are individually motivated to develop it.

3.3. The National Measurement System

A third role that RSED plays in common with

the rest of NBS is to assure the effective utilization

of the national measurement system as a whole. The

effort of the Division here is to help coordinate and

guide resources which are external to RSED, but

which bear on electromagnetic measurements. This

can be accomplished by collecting and making

available information on national capabilities, by

appropriate referrals, by committee activities, and

by recommendations looking to a more useful

organization of the national measurement system.

3.4. International Measurement Agreement

In the interests of world trade, the national

measurement system of the United States must

be compatible with the systems of other countries.

To this end RSED compares its important standards of power, attenuation, noise, and other quantities—at both radio and microwave frequencies

with all countries ready and willing to do so. It has also made major contributions to other programs, such as the achievement of international

agreement on the dimensional and electromagnetic

standardization of coaxial connectors.

3.5. Major Technical Areas of RSED

The number of standards required for electro- magnetic measurements is illustrated by figure 1, which shows three of the several "dimensions" in- volved—physical quantity, magnitude, and accuracy. Quantities include power, electric and magnetic field strength, impedance, noise, voltage, at- tenuation, current, phase, and reflection coefficient. In terms of frequency, RSED is concerned with

the spectrum from about 30 kHz to and including

millimeter-wave frequencies at about 300 GHz.

This is a seven-decade range or, in musical terms,

23 octaves ! Electrical standards from dc to 30

kHz are supplied by the IBS Electricity Division

in Washington, D.C.

The front plane of figure 1 shows the variety of

techniques and devices needed to measure just one

quantity, power, at various frequencies and in

magnitudes ranging from microwatts to megawatts. Each of the other quantities shown requires an entirely new family of standards.

FREQUENCY

ioor

GHz

10

100 MHz

:i ^ 5 S ^ ^ " 5 o i2 2 10

MICItOCUOIIIMETER S BOIOMEIER SimiiED W»TER DIDECriONtL CUORIMETER COUPLER MEIHOO

lonpioii mm COUPIER

ITfE ]::::::

IMPEDiNCt VtilUIIOIt METHOD

LIQUID

BOLOMETER BRIDGE

SI»TIC MLOmMETEIiFLOW

CALORI MEIER OIRECTIONH COUPLER

1 1 1 1

1 flM 1 mW 1 W MAGNITUDE

kW MW

FiGUEE 1.

Some standards required for electromagnetic measurements.

45
3.6. Summary

In summary, RSED must assure that the basis

for a system of measurements, fundamental to the

determination of the electromagnetic quantities

and of certain electromagnetic properties, is provided to the Nation. The Division acts as a central

reference point and as a facility which performs

tasks most economically carried out by a central

laboratory; it also provides leadership in coordinating efforts of other laboratories. These activities extend over many physical quantities and over an extremely wide frequency spectrum.

4. Time and Frequency Division

The measurement of time interval is based on

the measurement of frequency. Frequency is meas- ured with an instrument that determines the fre- quency of a particular resonance within the cesi- um atom, and time is measured by counting the

cycles of this resonance as a clock counts the

swings of a pendulum.

Time which is accumulated locally on a clock

with the aid of a frequency standard is known as "proper time," or "local time." But when broadcast m correct coordination with others, it becomes

"coordinate time," useful for synchronization and

for epoch, or telling the "time of day."

Thus time becomes a real embodiment of the national measurement system. At a suitable source, proper time is accumulated at the correct coordi- nate rate and could be sent by wire to nearby ter- minals. In actuality, numerous stations broadcast

signals which are present in accordance with the

system at the correct coordinate frequency and

epoch. This Division participates by maintaining

a frequency standard, accumulating proper time,

modifying it suitably in rate and epoch, and dis- tributing it as coordinate time. To effectively

eliminate distortion from propagation and gravitation effects, accurate calipers are needed to measure the coordinate time units throughout the net- work. The calipers in this case are travelling

clocks and local atomic standards.

NBS built the world's first atomic frequency

standard in 1949. This was followed by the development of two cesium-beam frequency standards

which are probably the most accurate and care- fully evaluated of any in the world. In 1962 we

developed a national standard scale of time, NBSA, based on atomic transitions. These achievements, along with similar developments at other

laboratories, led to international agreement in 1964 on the atomic standard to be used for the

measurement of time, which was formalized in 1967 by a new definition of the second.

The Time and Frequency Division establishes,

maintains, and improves the NBS standards of

freq^uency and time interval. It thus provides the

Nation with an accurate realization of the ideal

basic standard of time interval—the second—as defined in the International System (SI) of units.

The present standard, NBS-III, is a cesium

atomic-beam device employing a magnetic reso- nance technique. This has a 3-sigma accuracy of

±5X10-^2 (about one second in 6000 years, or

0.4 microseconds per day). Work is in progress to improve its accuracy to ±5 X 10"^^. Research also is continuing on the development

of two atomic hydrogen masers as possibly improved frequency standards with accuracies ap- proaching ±1X10"^^ (about one second in 300,-

000 years, or a few billionths of a second per day).

4.1. Frequency-Time Broadcast Services

In order to disseminate standard frequency and

coordinate time signals to users through the world,

NBS operates radio stations WWV (Fort Collins,

Colorado) and WWVH (Maui, Hawaii) in the

high-frequency bands, WWVB (Fort Collins,

Colorado) in the low-frequency band at 60 kHz,

and WWVL (Fort Collins, Colorado) in the VLF

band. "WIWL is an experimental facility, but

presently is providing highly stable frequency in- formation with nearly worldwide coverage at 20

kHz. Signals as broadcast from all these stations are referenced to the NBS Frequency Standard.

In addition to standard radio frequency and time

signals, "VVWV and WWVH also provide standard audio tones, standard time intervals, binary

coded time of day, radio propagation forecasts,

and notices of geophysical events. For years, these broadcasts have met the needs

of thousands of users such as radio stations, elec- trical power companies, standards laboratories,

navigators, missile ranges, satellite-tracking sta- tions, navigational-satellite systems, and research

laboratorities. A Special Publication, SP 236, describing the signal structure, and a monthly Time

and Frequency Services Bulletin giving current

data, are available on request.

4.2. National and International Coordination

of Time-Frequency Services

The CCIR (International Radio Consultative

Committee) has organized and established a worldwide system of standard frequency and time

broadcasts known as the UTC system. This system

is coordinated through the International Bureau

of Time (BIH) in Paris. One of the TFD staff is U.S. chairman of the CCIR Studjr Group VII

called "Standard Frequencies and Time Signals."

This Study Group is charged with "improvement

of measurement accuracy" in this area. On the national scene, we cooperate closely with the U.S.

Naval Observatory and are presently engaged

with the USNO in the initial formation of a very

precise "U.S. coordinate time system." This may

act as a pilot model for the evolution of the UTC

system into a precise international coordinate time

system. We are also concerned with what our role

should be in the upcoming Aircraft Collision

Avoidance (ACA) System and what its relation

46
should be to the UTC system. The ACA System

requires a nationwide (and eventually worldwide)

network of ground stations, all of which are synchronized to within ±0.1 microsecond at all times.

4.3. Frequency-Time Disemination Research

The staff is continuing research on better

methods of distributing time ^and frequency—such

as using satellites or multiple-frequency VLF

broadcasts—and is also doing research on how best

to provide time and frequency for deep-space

operation.

For example, the short-wave signals fi'om

"W^W and WWVH are not stable enough over long distances to meet some needs, such as missile

range timing or satellite tracking. Therefore, the

low-frequency station, WWVL, for example, on

20 kHz has been used for several years to study

using multiple- frequency transmissions spaced by,

say 100 Hz, to achieve nearly worldwide distribution of coordinate time without the large uncertainties introduced by the ionosphere on HF transmissions. In addition, coordinate-time distribution

via satellite has been investigated using the VHF

transponder in NASA's ATS-1 satellite to relay

time signals from Boulder, Colorado, to Mojave,

California; Pitcairn Island in the South Pacific;

Maui, Hawaii; and Anchorage, Alaska. Coordinate time has also been transferred by bouncing

signals off the moon (using Jet Propulsion Lab's

moon-bounce radar system) and by using reflec- tions from meteor trails. Time comparisons between clocks at NBS, Boulder, and our Fort Collins site are being made to 0.1 microsecond using

a ver^ simple and inexpensive technique involving

the simultaneous monitoring at the two locations

of synchronizing pulses broadcast by one of the

Denver television stations. Here inexpensive commercial TV sets are used as receivers.

4.4. Summary

Time and frequency have many facets, and the

NBS Time and Frequency Division is engaged

actively in the study of several of these. A prime

area of research and development is the establishIment, improvement, and maintenance of the NBS

basic proper standard of frequency. This realizes

the international definition of the local second of

time, and is used as a primary reference standard

j for local use. NBS participates in extended coil ordinated time systems, both nationally and in1' ternationally, through its radio transmissions

( from Fort Collins, Colorado, and Maui, Hawaii.

I Research on the organization and standardization

. of coordinate time systems is carried out through

participation in satellite and radio broadcast

I studies and through active administrative and

I technical cooperation with other Government and

j industrial agencies. There is similar intensive co-

! ordination with other nations in matters such as

the organization of a worldwide coordinate time

system, the international comparison of basic

standards, and the improvement of measurement

accuracy.

5. Laboratory Astrophysics Division

Laboratory astrophysics studies atoms in a controlled laboratory environment in an attempt to explain stellar processes. This study of individual

atoms and their interactions with each other and

witli radiation fields may be a new tool for understanding a hot, gaseous environment. Compounded

countless times, these individual processes determine the gross features observed not only in a star, but also in a nuclear explosion, in the ionosphere, or in a commercial high-vacuum process. In order to develop the measurement science re- quired by this field, the National Bureau of Standards joined with the University of Colorado to form the Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics ( JILA) in 1962. The Bureau and the University each supplies part of the permanent staff and each contributes to the cost. Approximately

ten NBS senior staff members hold faculty appointments (as lecturers or professors adjoint)

without pay. With this status, all our JILA staff can participate in the University's academic program, giving lectures and conducting classes,

supervising the work of graduate students, and

taking part in seminars. Within the NBS this

small group, with the addition of some technical

and administrative staff, constitutes the NBS

Laboratory Astrophysics Division (LAD). This

arrangement represents a departure from the con- ventional form of a university-government agency

cooperation, designed to 'achieve certain specific

objectives more effectively than could be done in

the central laboratories of the Bureau.

The NBS Laboratory Astrophysics Division

pursues the twin objectives of developing methods of measuring the parameters of atomic interactions, and of developing the theory of the

macroscopic behavior of hot gases and of the

transfer of radiation through such gases in

terms of atomic parameters. The NBS group

pursues tliis measurement science surrounded in

JILA by academic activity in astrophysics,

plasma physics, atmospheric physics, aerodynamics, and other similar fields which overlap with

atomic physics. The name Laboratory Astrophysics is intended to describe the whole mutually stimulating research environment.

5.1. Atomic Physics

The JILA laboratories include one of the

world's foremost centers of reseai-ch in atomic

physics. For example, this laboratory led in the

application of laser technology to the study of

atomic parameters. A particularly important

recent development is the realization of the

47
potential of the laser for the study of molecular

structure and the determination of molecular

constants. A byproduct of this work is a technique for using the laser to provide a greatly

improved length standard. Also, the velocity of

light may be remeasured with a significant improvement in accuracy. The main emphasis in the atomic physics ef- fort is, however, the development of methods

for measuring or calculating the basic microscopic data needed for predicting properties of

special environments.

5.2. Astrophysics

The purpose of the LAD effort in astrophysics

is a complete understanding of the production

and transfer of radiation in terms of the microscopic processes. The goal is the characterization

of the atmospheres of stars, nebulae, and of in- terstellar media. This requires quantitative in- formation about the collisional and radiative

interactions occurring. Realization of this goal

would permit definitive interpretation of observed stellar spectra. The astrophysical medium, in a very real sense, provides a laboratory

for research in the theory of spectroscopic meas- urement of the state of an extremely hot gas. The term "spectroscopic diagnostics" has been

applied to the relationship between observational spectroscopy and such theoretical studies.

5.3. Academic Training

JILA has commitments in two directions:

scientific research and academic training in the

field of laboratory astrophysics. NBS members

of JILA may participate in the academic pro- gram in several ways. They may teach undergraduate and graduate courses in physics and

astrophysics through appointments as research

associates, lecturers, or professors adjoint. In

this manner, the University enjoys the full and

active participation of the entire NBS group.

More than half of the staff are "transients"

visiting scientists and post-doctoral and graduate students—^who work at JILA for a period of

several months or one or two years. The National Bureau of Standards, through a grant to the University, provides for ten additional out- standing scientists in appropriate fields to come

to JILA on one-year appointments as Visiting

Fellows. This program is now recognized by sci- entists all over the world as an outstanding opportunity to contribute effectively in the area of

laboratory astrophysics.

5.4. The JILA Information Analysis Center

The JILA Information Analysis Center is a part of the National Standard Reference Data

System. Its mission is the collection of critically.

evaluated data on low-energy collisions between

electrons, photons, ions, atoms, and molecules of

astrophysical interest. Bibliographies, data compilation, and critical reviews are the major products; these are issued as JILA Information Analysis Center reports, as NBS publications, or as papers in recognized tech- nical journals. These compilations and critical re- views have been one of the more significant contributions which JILA has been able to make in

the field of atomic physics. The center now contains some 2,000 papers, adds 40 more per month, and

answers approximately 800 queries per year.

5.5. Summary

The theories, measurement techniques, and data

developed by JILA are used in

• Federal Programs

Ballistic Missile Defense Space Exploration

Nuclear Weapons Ef- Ionospheric

fects Prediction

Controlled Thermonu- Basic Standards

clear Research and Measurements

• Industrial Technology

Industrial Performance Laser Applications on the above Federal

programs

Gaseous Electronics,

Plasma Devices

Hypersonic Aerodynamics • Science:

Astronomy and Space Quantum

Science Electronics

Atomic and Molecular Chemical Physics

Physics

These programs depend for their continued success on a detailed understanding of the environment: on the availability of basic microscopic data and of

reliable methods of measuring or predicting en- vironmental properties.

Thus, the Joint Institute for Laborator:v

Astrophysics

Provides a center for advanced research.

Trains graduate and postdoctoral students.

Brings m outstanding scientists from the U.S.

and abroad.

Works closely with NBS to advance continuing programs in measurement science.

6. Cryogenics Division

The cryogenic laboratory here is the primary

agency of the United States Government for providing comprehensive and current information in

the field of very low temperatures. The Cryogenics

Division provides, in barest terms, data and services. Included in the "data" function are : the properties of matter, a Cryogenic Data Center,

48
measurement methodology, and the description of

system behavior. Included in the "services" function are our advisory and consultative activities.

6.1. Properties of Matter

This Division conducts extensive experimental

research to determine the physical properties of

solid materials fluids, and systems. We also con- duct theoretical programs to improve the understanding of material behavior at low temperatures.

The properties of solids is a vast field and en- compasses a wide variey of parameters, each of

which must be evaluated from ambient to very low

temperatures. For instance, data on thermal and

electrical conductivity; thermal expansion and

tensile, yield, and impact strength are needed.

In fluid properties, research is being conducted

on cryogenic fluids to determine thermodynamic

and transport properties. The basic measurements

of the properties of cryopropellants, and other

low-temperature fluids used in rocketry, are probably the most valuable and permanent contribution

of NBS to the space program. Thus far, the

principal effort has been in parahydrogen, the propellant most admired in aerospace applications for

its high specific impulse. The data generated are believed to be the most accurate and reliable ever reported and include many properties never before

measured over any considerable range of temperature or pressure. A similar program is now being

completed on oxygen, and one is in progress for

fluorine.

6.2. Cryogenic Data Center

The Cryogenic Data Center complements the

experimental generation of new data by an evaluation and compilation program which has provided

the world's most extensive collection of teclmical

literature on the cryogenic properties of materials.

The Center was a charter participant in the National Standard Reference Data System and now

has international stature. Its outputs include

charts and tables prepared from experimental and

"compiled" data, and the publication of "best

values" of thermodynamic and transport, data. The

Cryogenic Data Center now contains over 52,000

references and adds 7,500 more each year. Nearly

800 paid subscribers receive a weekly current- awareness service covering both new literature and

research and engineering activities. Throughout

its history, NBS has worked in close collaboration

with scientists and engineers in industry, in universities, and in other Government agencies. Our

Data Center exemplifies this concept of service and

cooperation.

6.3. Measurement Methodology

Basic to every technology is the art and science

of measurement itself. We conduct both theoretical

and experimental cryogenic instrumentation programs to develop new methods of measurement

and improved measurement techniques in the areas of pressure, temperature, density, state and flow

rate. For example, we are completing a facility to study cryogenic-fluid measuring practices, to develop recommendations for the custody and transfer of commercially important fluids, and to allow

testing of new concepts in measurement. This will

also provide regulatory agencies with a facility

for type-testing cryogenic-fluid metering devices.

Further, it will bring to the cryogenics industry

(a $2-billion annual market) a better understanding of how to achieve more efficient and economical

operation of cryogenic processes.

6.4. Behavior of Systems

The research in cryogenic system engineering is aimed at producing fundamental understanding

which will lead to large engineering advances. The

principal activities are related to investigations of

basic problems and phenomena associated with

cryogenic technology in order to explain and predict the behavior of cryogenic systems.

Mixtures of solid and liquid hydrogen, because

they have a higher heat capacity and a greater

density than single-phase material, are of interest

in aerospace applications, since the potential exists

to reduce vehicle volume, increase storage time,

and minimize propellant sloshing. We are measuring the properties of solid and liquid hydrogen and

are studying production and flow characteristics

of mixtures.

Problems in utilizing cryogenic propellants at high altitudes are being investigated. One such

problem is the formation of solids by freezing

when the ambient pressure is below the triple- point

pressure of the fluid. These solids can obstruct or

retard flow and thereby cause a malfunction in the

propellant system of a space vehicle.

A recently completed study is making liquid hydrogen more usable as a rocket fuel. A pre-launch

problem with vehicles using cryogenic propellants

is that environmental heating in the piping system

connecting the propellant tank to the delivery

pump may cause pump cavitation and faulty combustion. To overcome this situation, we have investigated the cooling of liquid hydrogen by the

bubble-through of helium gas. The technique was

found to subcool the hydrogen enough through

evaporative cooling to provide the pump with

properly conditioned fluid immediately prior to rocket engine firing.

All of the Saturn-class rockets fired by the

United States are using helium gas injection to provide subcooling to both the hydrogen and oxygen propellants.

49
6.5. Summary

Cryogenics is sometimes thought of merely as an adjunct to space propulsion, when it is, in fact, a rapidly grooving billion-dollar business and a major national resource. We feel that our outputs

have had significant impact upon many Government and private areas. For instance, on • space—particularly propulsion, although

cryogenics is also vital to the success of space

simulation andl life support

;

• health—for blood freezing, cryosurgery, marrow banks, breathing oxygen, and biological archives

;

• agriculture—for food preservation, refrigerated transportation, and cryobiology

;

• conservation—for power transmission by su- perconduction and for helium conservation; • transportation—for magnetically suspended

trains, and cryogenically fueled aircraft

;

• education—for basic research in high-energy

physics and superconductivity.

Cryogenics will be used in the future in every

phase of industry: in basic research, materials,

process chemistry, production, storage, and trans- portation. Many capable research men agree that

cryogenics will be to the second half of the 20th

century what high-temperature processing was to the first half.

7. Conclusion

Here, then, are the Boulder Laboratories of the

National Bureau of Standards—with work on

m'aterials from atomic nuclei to bulk fluids, on

electrical quantities at frequencies from kilohertz

to gigahertz, on temperatures from near absolute zero to those of stellar atmospheres. Despite this

diversity, they achieve their strength through a common bond : the business of advancing measure- ment science and making measurements in the

extreme frontiers of the physical world.

50
NCSL 68

SESSION 4: INTERNATIONAL MEASUREMENTS

Chairman: H. W. Lance

National Bureau of Standards, Boulder, Colorado 80302 MEASUREMENT CONTROL AS A VALUABLE NATIONAL ASSET

C. E. White

Avco Missile Systems Division, Wilmington, Massachussets 01887

Introduction

Five hundred thousand years ago history re- corded the first stirrings of technology. However,

before man generally learned to use iron and steel, before there was any conception that this was an

inhabited world, and before the discovery of nat- ural fuels other than wood and charcoal, the Egyptians had skillfully produced flaked knife blades

of flint, constructed exquisite and precise memorials such as the inner coffin of Tutankhamen, and

evolved methods for quarrying, dressing, and erect- ing intricate stone shapes to form the temple

columns, pyramids, and obelisks which mark

Egyptian architceture. It is needless to point out

the requirement of precise measurement standards

which had to exist in order to perform such tasks. The Growing Awareness

In order to promote commercial transactions,

the techniques and practices first employed in

weighing gold-dust were transferred to commerce,

about 2500 B.C., by merchants of northern India

and some cities of Mesopotamia. Previously, most

transactions had been made through the medium

of barter. Introduction of this system served to encourage a large expansion of trading among nations all over the Middle East region and with it the influence of Indian and Mesopotamian culture. Even after the decline of the great ancient

empires of the Middle East, the standards of

weights and measures which had become an inte- gral part of trade, were maintained by the Greeks

and Romans and formed the basis of new systems

evolved by these nations. In fact, the Greek and

Roman systems controlled most international trade

.from the seventh century B.C. to the seventh

century A.D.

We observe that in the year 789 A.D., the ambassador of the Abbasid Caliph Harun al-Rashid (of

The Thousand and One Nights stories) , presented

to the emperor Charlemagne, as a token of esteem,

a standard of linear measure (the Hashimi cubit

of 25.56 inches) and a set of weights controlling

Arabic gold coinage.

The rise of the Islamic empire and the advent of

the Crusades and their failures did much to destroy

the continuity of western measurement systems.

In passing it should be noted that prior to the

introduction of the metric system into Europe,

not only did every nation have its own system of

weights and measures, but large cities in each

nation usually had separate and distinct standards

of their own. This confusion and profusion of sys- tems encouraged tariffs on imported articles, il- legal profiteering on international and intercity

exchanges of goods, shoddy merchandising, and

low rewards to the artisans.

Many years later, speaking before the 1966

Technology and World Trade Symposium at Gaithersburg, Maryland, the following statements were made by Mr. F. Hadass, representative from

Israel

An important tool of technological advance- ment is standardization. It is of utmost importance particularly to developing countries as

suppliers, as well as purchasers in the world

market

:

• It helps them to establish, right from the beginning, an adequate quality of production

• It helps them to become discriminating

buyers, thus intelligent spenders.

• It offers them a kind of clearing house in the complex of world trade

• It also offers to beginners the benefits of knowledge and experience accumulated in the existing standards. Developing countries are particularly interested

in international standards.

51
The Barriers of Self Interest

Consider for a moment, if you will, the United

States to be made up of fifty states, each with its own currency and language. Would we be the

strong industrial nation we are? Undoubtedly

not ! And the picture wdiild be even blacker were

there fifty measurement systems. Perhaps, then, we should count our blessings, and consider in- stead the problems faced in other continents.

In Europe, for example, a situation existed

which approached the suppositious case mentioned previously. Note that in the period 1780 to 1966, twenty-nine sovereign countries overcame

the handicap of separate currency and language

barriers to agree upon a common measurement

system. During those years, the flow of trade be- tween the distinctive nations brought with it a commonality which has done miuch to bring to- gether into a loosely-knit family the many people

who make up this conglomerate. As an example,

there is the Treaty of Rome which established the

Common Market, which in turn has helped to re- duce or eliminate tariffs between the six member

nations, and to establish mutually acceptable

standards of technical performance to assure compatibility of articles and reasonable levels of

quality and reliability. It is interesting to note however, that national

standardization brings with it all the problems

associated with provincialism. There was a great

deal of debate, before a standard was accepted, on

the number of television scanning lines to be employed in European television receivers. Still unresolved is the prevailing number of national

standards for automobiles in Europe today. Manufacturers find it necessary to produce at least nine

versions of an automobile in order to fulfill the

various national requirements for design.

The developing nation of Israel, in attempting

to attain a degree of economic stability, has turned

to the export of plywood. Their national standard of sizes provides for 47 varieties, but because

of the lack of uniformity of standards in the importing nations, Israel is required to deliver several

hundred different sizes of boards.

Let's consider our own country. The United

States has been reluctant or inhibited in its at- tempts to participate in the workings of the In- ternational Electrotechnical Commission. This has

helped precipitate an incompatibility in environmental testing standards which eventually will

rule out international acceptance of U.S. products

manufactured and tested to our national provincial quality standards. The loss, in part or in total,

of our industrial export market ultimately will

seriously affect our economy. This is true simply

because the U.S. market would be flooded by the

products of industrial giants formed from the

conglomeration of the many metric-systemoriented nations. These nations are capable of in- terchanging among themselves all the components

which form the ultimate product finding its way

to our shores. Remember that the U.S. consumer

has no blind loyalty to purely U.S. products

he is perfectly happy, under most circumstances,

to purchase any product in his local market, as long as it is compatible with his immediate needs.

National System Concepts

It is apparent, then, that a nation must have a form of "measurement control" or put in another

way, a nation must have a "National Measurement

System." This is so, simply because without such

a system there can be no way to

• Provide a sound and equitable basis for trade

in goods and commodities. • Provide a commonly accepted measurement

basis in order that interchangeable parts, components, and subsystems may be produced at separate but compatible facilities. • Provide a measurement basis which will per- mit and encourage the interchange of meaningful scientific and technical information.

But after measurement control is in being, one major problem area must be examined—^is the

control of such a nature as to permit coordinated

interchange of industrial products with other nations ? If not, it is incumbent upon that nation to become self-sufficient for all of its industrial needs, or find itself forced to convert its imports to such

a form as to permit interchange or interface with

home-produced components.

There are areas of measurement control other

than that of industrial production. Areas such as

health, safety, recreation, and communication are commonly overlooked when considering the desirability or value of such controls. Particularly is this true in the areas of closely associated, comparatively small (geographically) nations such as

exist in Europe, the Middle East, many parts of

Africa, and parts of South and Central America.

It is well to have a National Measurement System through which a nation can establish standards

for air and water pollution; noise control; air, sea, and land traffic. But how does one nation's controls coincide with its neighbor's ? Without a great

deal of thought, compromise, and some sacrifice of

national pride, it is almost impossible to create an

internationally unified system of controls which

are for the good of the greatest number. Lest we

become too complacent in regarding the troubles

which beset our European friends, remember that our own nation is beset by many problems which

normally arise from the peculiar form of secularism which is known as "state's rights."

52
Some Social Aspects

In concluding these remarks, it might be pointed

out that not much has been said of the impact

upon the social behavior of nations which are subject to commonality of measurements. But in reality, is there much that is needed to be said ? Take a few practical examples and consider the

disruption to international social intercourse which

results without standardization and measurement

control. • How many remember the impact upon American golf, of the acceptance of the smaller,

livelier English golf ball in the 1930's ? • How many non-musicians know why many

European recordings of brass instruments

sound sharp as compared to recordings of the same composition made in the United States ? The answer is simple—the European concert standard of pitch for a' is 450 cycles as compared with the accepted American or philharmonic standard of 440 cycles. The European "high" pitch has been giving way to the

standard or "philharmonic" pitch of 440

cycles, but European trumpeters still maintain their individuality. • Baseball is played all over the world with a

single-sized ball, as also are hockey and

basketball. • American housewives still complain about the

cakes they make when using measuring cups

manufactured in Japan—they are slightly

larger in volume since they are based upon

the Imperial Gallon.

In a more serious vein it is interesting to note

the reactions of three noted Americans who are aspiring to the role of President of the United

States, to the subject of Technology and Society.

Queried on this subject, Vice-President Hubert H.

Humphrey wrote this for the Engineers Joint

Council publication "Engineer" in the July-August 1968 issue

Engineering has nearly always been a social

activity. This role is not new. Throughout history,

advances in culture and civilization have been

accompanied or preceded by bold engineering.

Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller, in the same issue,

made these points

Within their profession, engineers have the opportunity to greatly enlarge their own roles. But they will not achieve this as technologists

alone. If engineers are to have a major voice on

projects, fund allocations, and i)olicies, they will attain it first as citizens and only secondly as

technologists. Therefore I would say that the

engineer of the future is the man whose knowledge of society, and his role in society is at

least the equal of his technical proficiency.

Finally, Senator Eugene J. McCarthy voiced opinions as follows

Engineers and politicians and others who are involved in this practical world must test their applications not only against truths and stand- ards of science, philosophy, and theology. They

are also called upon to be concerned with the

findings and standards of the social sciences and

art. Although these men are speaking of the profession of engineering in a general sense, note the

reference to standards, made by Senator McCarthy. I suggest that metrologists take a deep breath

and dive into the pool of relationship between

measurement standards and social behavior.

Conclusion

One of the most difficult tasks set before any

group of metrologists is to establish dollar values

upon the employment of standard units for international trade and balance of payments. This has

become a subject of more than normal interest to the United States with the resurgence of interest

in establishing the metric system as the one legal

system in the United States. In particular, the

Director of the National Bureau of Standards

has established a Task Force under A. G. McNish,

to study the problem and to draw upon the technical, financial, institutional, and governmental

resources of the United States in an attempt to discover the cost and the value of metric standardization. The work of this group, together with studies being made by many U.S. industries, caa cer- tainly point to at least one conclusion—controlled

measurements must exist, regardless of the meas- urement system involved.

58

LEGAL METROLOGY AND ESTABLISHMENT OF METROLOGY

CENTRES IN INDIA

V. B. Mainkar

Director, Weights and Measures, Indian Ministry of Commerce, New Delhi, India

Introduction

The National Conference of Standards Laboratories has chosen as its theme for the 1968 Standards Laboratory Conference a simple statement

"Measurements Are Valuable"—and I would like to direct some thoughts to that theme.

It is very possible that many of the attendees

at this Conference are not aware of the extensive

efforts being made by the less developed nations

toward adoption of a unified measurement system.

Perhaps also, they are not aware of the support

and sponsorship of these efforts by an activity

known as the International Organisation of Legal

Metrology (OIML) with headquarters in Paris.

I propose today to demonstrate for you some

steps being taken by OIML in its efforts to en- courage and support formation of Departments of

Legal Metrology in all nations, developing or developed. The first part of this paper is devoted to a short discussion of the philosophy of the OIML

and some practical problems it proposes to face. The second part comments on a series of questions

directed to countries participating in OIML, the answers to which will serve as guides for future

cooperative action between the OIML and the in- dividual nations. The third and final part of this

discussion presents some thoughts concerning the

impact of legal metrology upon the economic and

social life of a nation, in particular drawing upon

the experiences encountered in India as it has

moved from a nation with over 130 measurement

systems to a nation which has adopted, and is slowly but certainly applying, a single measure- ment system to the conduct of the business of its many millions of citizens. Introducing Legal Metrology to the

State

The control of weights and measures through

legal means to ensure honest transactions and ac- curate measurements has been considered as an

important duty of the State from ancient times

all over the world. The result is that every country, whether developed or developing, has certain

laws or customs relating to the various aspects

of the control of weights and measures. With the

development of modem science and technology,

the functions of the State in this field have been

extended to the control of accuracy of measure- ment in industry and to those cases in which the

safety of human beings depends on these measurements.

As a result of the rapid progress of science and

technology and the consequent extension of the

field of control, the gap between the coverage of

the weights and measures laws in the developed

and developing countries has widened. Today the

weights and measures laws in developing countries differ widely in their application and cover- age from those in industrial countries.

The International Organisation of Legal Metrology (OIML) , which was set up in 1965, is now

considering how the developing countries and the

industrialized countries could benefit mutually

from each others' experiences in the field of legal

metrology. The Organisation has undertaken the

preparation of a Model Law on Weights and

Measures. It is to give advice on the constitution

and equipment of a Department of control of

weights and measures, also on specifications for

various types of weights, measures, and weighing

and measuring instruments and methods of verification which are essential for the legal state control of weights and measures. The Organisation is trying to prepare prescriptions which would be equally valid for both the

developed and the developing countries. The OIML

is now anxious both to receive general "advice" on

its work and also to assess the "needs" of the developing countries with regard to the basic law on

control of weights and measures and to expedite the

work which is likely to be of immediate use in

developing countries. At the meeting of the Presidential Council held in October 1967, it was therefore proposed that a questionnaire* should be

issued to all countries to obtain their views on these

Editor's note : Copies may be obtained from the NCSL Secretariat, % National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234.

55
matters. Questions have been included on the

following five main points

I. The Weights and Measures Law

The law which enables the State to control the

accuracy and use of weights and measures in trade,

industry and other sectors of the national economy

is of prime importance.

The state of development of the Weights and

Measures Organisation which could implement

such a law differs from country to country as do

also the type of instruments used in trade, industry or other fields to which it is anticipated that the

law shall apply.

The international Model Law has to be framed

in such a manner that it will be equally useful in

industrialized and developing countries.

To ensure this general usefulness, should it contain provisions for its implementation in well-defined phases ? For example, in the first phase, only

commercial weights, capacity and length measures and related instruments could be subject to veri- fication and inspection. In the second phase, simple

instruments like taximeters, water meters and elec- tricity meters etc. could be taken up. In the third

phase, more complicated instruments like auto- matic weighing machines, totalisers, electronic in- struments, work-shop equipment, equipment for

measurement of sounds and noise etc. could be

subjected to control.

Or should the scope of the Model Law be such

as would cover the entire work now on the programme of the OIML or which may be undertaken

in the future, and it be left to the Departments to decide on its progressiveness ? Such a Model Law

applied in stages would facilitate the setting up

and planned expansions of the Organisation of

Weights and Measures and progressive training of

the officials.

II. Organisation of the Weights and Measures

Department

To ensure the progressive application of the

Law, it is necesary to create from the beginning an

adequate Weights and Measures Department which

can be expanded progressively. The officials of the

Department should possess excellent technical

qualifications and their remuneration should be

adequate with good prospects of advancement.

In setting up such a Service it may be desirable

to seek the help of experts from other developing

countries who have greater experience of enforcement of legal metrology laws. Such an association

would be fruitful because problems of developing

countries have considerable similarity and solu- tions devised in one of them could prove useful,

with certain modifications, where necessary, for the

others. Experts from developed countries could be

associated with the subsequent development of the

Service when sufficient progress had been made.

III. Training

In order that the Weights and Measures Services

shall be effective it is necessary to give the officials a sound training in the methods of verification,

calibration, inspection and other technical, legal

and administrative duties imposed on them by the

Weights and Measures Laws. Setting up of training Institutes is an arduous and expensive but an

important task. It may, however, not be possible

for every country to set up such schools. The exist- ing facilities in developing countries might, therefore, be utilised to the maximum extent possible, as is being done, for example, at the All India

Training Institute of Weights and Measures

( AITIWM) at Patna in India, which is also training officials from other countries such as Nepal.

The training of some of the senior officers could

also be arranged in a developing country like India

where the National Physical Laboratory imparts more advanced training after the instruction given

by the All India Training Institute of Weights and

Measures, Patna.

Imparting of training in developed countries in

the initial stages might not be as useful as it might

not have immediate practical application for a developing country, so far as everyday instruments

are concerned; so far as complicated instruments

are concerned, it would always be possible to use

the Services of developed countries. The training

in developed countries, therefore, should be en- visaged only when sufficient progress had been

made by the Weights and Measures Services of

the developing countries concerned.

IV. Standard Equipment for the Organisation

The Weights and Measures Organisations will

have to be adequately equipped at the national,

regional and inspectorial levels to enable them

to carry out verification and inspection of weights

and measures, and the standard equipment to be

used at these three levels as well as accessory devices would have to be purchased and set up. Such

equipment of adequate accuracy could be obtained

from other developing countries which have been

able to set up the necessary manufacturing facilities, this resulting in a saving of time, effort and

money.

V. Measuring Equipment for Use in Public

Transactions

In developing countries, too many kinds of

weights and measures are used for different public

purposes. For state control of weights and measures to be effective, the law must require, as a fundamental principle, that the weights and measures used throughout the country conform to in- ternationally accepted specifications. OIML should

prepare specifications for cast iron weights, brass

weights, capacity measures for milk and kerosene,

length measures for textiles, surveying chains, and

56
other length measures for survey purposes, equalarmed beam scales, counter scales etc. on a priority basis. As the Weights and Measures Law

would be implemented in stages, it is necessaiy that

priorities should be laid down for standardising

those weights, measures and instruments which

are required immediately by the developing

countries.

Financial Assistance

Most of the countries in the world charge small

fees for their verification services, and even developing countries are normally not able to provide

such services free of charge. In spite of these

receipts, however, some technical and also financial

assistance, preferably from international sources, may be necessary, particularly in the initial stages,

for setting up and equipping the new Department

of Weights and Measures in a developing country,

as well as for ensuring the training of its officials. The purchase of national, regional, and inspectorial standard equipment might have to be fully or

partially financed through the varied generous as- sistance of governments or international bodies. It might also be possible to arrange bilteral or group schemes for mutual technical assistance between two or more countries, efforts being made to

utilise these sources for the purposes of the development of the Weights and Measures Organisations. The International Bureau of Legal Metrology is in touch with inter-governmental Organisations and could assess the assistance which may be

available to the Weights and Measures Organisations in developing countries for this purpose.

Metrology Centres and Scientific Instruments in Developing Countries

Metrology, the science and technique of measurement, is of fundamental importance in the econ- omy of every country. Without it science, technology, trade, commerce, education, in fact, any work

done by man would be possible. In the light of the

tremendous progress made by metrology during

the last 50 years, it can now be said to be the most

important branch of human knowledge. Just as

steel production used to be an indication of the

state of development of a country, today, in the

age of sputniks and moon-shots, the state of metrology in a country is a more accurate index of its progress. In developing countries, metrology, as could be expected, is of a rudimentary character.

The purpose of this paper is to consider the state of metrology and its proper growth in what are

called developing countries.

Metrology may be considered under two broad

aspects. The first is fundamental metrology, which

is concerned with the definitions of units of weights

and measures, their practical realization at the

highest national and international levels and re- searches for improving their accuracies and extending their applicability. The second aspect is applied metrology, which is concerned with the application of the various units of weights and measures through instruments and other means to the

iimumerable tasks of measurement carried out

every day. A developing country will have to take

care of both these fields with meticulous care, if

it desires to develop its trade and industry on

sound lines. Fundamental Metrology

We may now consider the impact of fundamental metrology on the developing countries. At

the international level, the Conference Grenerale

des Poids et Mesures (CGPM) has prescribed six

fundamental units of weights and measures, namely, length (metre), mass (kilogram), time

(second), intensity of electric current (ampere),

thermodynamic temperature (degree kelvin), and

luminous intensity (candela) as the fundamental

units of a universal system called the Systeme

International d'Unites (SI) . A number of secondary, supplementary and derived units have also

been prescribed by this body under the SI. All the

important countries in the world have accepted

these fundamental units and the other specified

units as the basic units to be used for all purposes

of measurement. The developing countries, if they

wish to benefit from the labours of this international body, should also adopt these units.

Such adoption immediately imposes on the

country the duty to obtain the various standards,

that is, the national prototypes by which these

units can be translated into practice for application

in various fields. Thus, the national prototypes of

the metre and the kilogram are maintained by a number of countries, including India. For the

remaining four units, considerable exchange of

technical and scientific information is arranged

between countries. On a comparison of the data,

methods to realize these in practice have been

evolved for international use. In India, the

National Physical Laboratory (NPL) is responsible for the custody and maintenance of the national prototypes of the metre and the kilogram,

as also for the realization of the remaining four

fundamental units.

The maintenance and realization of these fundamental units is an expensive task. It is not possible

for every developing country to obtain the national

prototypes and their equivalents, and to maintain them systematically on a continuing basis. In such cases, it would be desirable to seek assist- ance from other developing countries, such as India, rather than spend large amounts of money

for obtaining the prototypes and their equivalents.

Thus copies of the standards of length and weight

required by a smaller developing comitry could

be certified by the NPL, India. The NPL could

also supply to developing countries copies of the

standards by which to realize the remaining four

57
units. As and when tliese countries find it possible,

they could obtain their own national prototypes

and other standards.

If a developing country wishes to establish a progressive fundamental metrology, it is necessary

that it should have suitable equipment for obtaining the highest possible accuracy in the national

standards of weights and measures. This is essential because an important problem for a developing country is that while it has to improve old

metrological traditions so as not to disrupt the

economic life of the country, it has also to prepare

itself to receive and benefit from the most advanced

technology to improve its economy. It has, in short, to cater to the two extremes of metrology. The

usual tendency is to develop metrology in line

with the progress of traditional measurements,

and neglect the reqviirements of modern technology, with the result that a co-ordinated metrological service does not take shape. The nation

remains tied down completely to its traditions and

cannot emerge easily into modern metrolo^.

Although it may he a little costlier to maintain or arrange for the best type of fundamental

metrology right from the beginning, there is no

doubt that in the long run this would be beneficial. It can, therefore, be concluded that in view of

the need to protect and improve old traditions as

also to modernize the economy quickly, a developing country should, if it is practical for it, maintain the national prototypes of the metre and the

kilogram as also otlier standards where possible.

If this is not possible, it should make arrangements with other developing countries to obtain

certified copies of standards for its national use

until such time as it can aft'ord them. It would

also be desirable for some of the developing countries to participate in the international work being

carried out by the CGPM so as to gain experience

in establishing and maintaining standards of

various types of weights and measures. Applied Metrology

Wliile establishing its fundamental metrology on a sound footing, developing country should

translate the accuracy obtained through its fundamental metrology, into a series of practical steps

and make it available to meet the various needs of

its trade and industry. This is the domain of

applied metrology which transforms the results of

the work of CGPM and the National Laboratory

into a practical pattern of use. The range of

applied metrology is extremely wide because it can extend from highly sophisticated industrial

and technological measures down to the weights

and measures used in the day-to-day market trans- actions in the village shop. A distinct characteristic

of a developing country is the wide variety of

weights and measures in use for different facets

of its economy. The first requirement, therefore,

would be to standardize the system of weights and

measures. There is no doubt that the metric system of weights and measures is the best suited for

a develojiing country because of its universal

acceptance. Having done that it would be possible

to extend it to every activity in the economy.

Because of the variety of weighing and measuring

practices in a developing country, a large number

of operations under applied metrology would

have to be carried out in a co-ordinated and uniform manner. Such co-ordination and uniformity

is possible only through legal means. Legal Metrology

The basic principle of the metrological law it> that all measurements made in any industry or trade should be derived in a well-established manner from the national standards and should be

within prescribed limits of errors. In developed

countries this guarantee is ensured by the periodical calibration, under law, of the various types of

weights and measures and weighing and measuring instruments used in trade, industry and for

other purposes.

When applied metrology is practised under a

law, it becomes legal metrology. Potentially, the

entire field of applied metrology is open to the

application of legal metx'ology. But in practice

it is restricted mainly to all commercial and in- dustrial measurements and to instruments used

for public safety and protection. Another inter- national body called the Organisation Internationale de Metrologie Legale (OIML) deals

with this vast field of legal metrology just as the

CGPM is the international authority for the work

on fundamental units of metrology. The OIML

takes up the thread of metrology where the CGPM

leaves it. Just as the work of the CGPM is accepted by

all the countries as the basis for their fundamental

metrology, similarly the work of the OIML has

to be adopted by all the countries for the purposes

of their legal metrology.

In the light of these international considerations, we may now consider the needs of applied

metrology so far as developing countries are concerned. The requirements could be considered under the following broad heads

1. The organisation necessary for translating

a,nd practising the metrological accuracies derived

from the national prototypes,

2. The need for a scheme to produce instruments

only after they have been approved in the model

stage,

3. The specifications for accuracies required for

various purposes in the field of applied metrology,

and

4. The training of the various categories of per- sonnel associated with metrology.

Organisational Problems

While there should be a central laboratory like the NPL in India which has the custody of the

58
national prototypes and other standards and

maintains them at approved accuracies, it will be

unreasonable to expect the laboratory to look after

the entire work of metrology, fundamental as well

as applied. It would be necessary to set up other

organisations to deal with the various aspects of

applied metrology.

Legal metrology has a signficant role to play in

the field of applied metrology in developing countries. It is necessary to establish a sound and ef- ficient organisation of legal metrology—an or- ganisation of weights and measures which can

serve as the medium through which the calibration

services in terms of fundamental metrology could

be made available to the various aspects of trade

and industry in the country.

The Organisation should ensure through legal means that all weights, measures, and weighing

and measuring instruments used in trade as well

as in industry should be submitted for periodical

calibration to it. In order to cope with the countrywide work, a number of small offices would have

to be set up at various centres which could cater

to the requirements of a well-defined and reasonable area. This organisation would work through

a series of standards, each of graded accuracy,

and would calibrate various types of weights and

measures with the appropriate standards. The

principal difficulty in setting up such an organisation is the production of the standard equipment,

and its supply to officials. Such equipment is costly because of the great care which has to be

exercised in its production to obtain the required

precision. In India such equipment has been produced at the State Mint, also at other sources

as well. It may not be possible for smaller developing

countries to incur the large expense of producing

this costly but essential equipment. India is al- ready supplying it to a number of countries in

Asia and Africa at a cost which is within their

reach, and could extend this facility to other

countries, if they so desire. Among the equipments

supplied are reference standards of weights and

measures which are required at the State level,

secondary standards of weights and measures which are essential at the regional level, and the

working standards of weights and measures which

are required at the level of local offices. Besides

these, India has also supplied to other countries

ordinary weights and measures as also various

types of weighing and measuring instruments

which are used for measurement by the public in

trade and industry. India has made services of its experts available to developing countries in set- ting up such organisations of legal metrology as well as preparing the legal documents required

for the purpose.

At the moment, the field of legal metrology in

India is confined mainly to the periodical calibration of weights, measures and various types of

weighing and measuring instruments used in trade

and industry. It is being extended now to the

calibration of engineering measures like end

measures, gauges, calipers, rules and the like, as

also to the instruments used for ensuring safety,

protection and health of public such as instruments

for measurement of noise, blood-pressure instruments, medical thermometers and the like. The

intention is to apply the weights and measures law to all the fields which are covered by the

work of the OIML. The extension of these activities would take place as financial resources be- come available in larger measure. The principal

difficulty envisaged is that of procuring equipments like interferometers and other highprecision instruments for undertaking the higher

calibrations. The help of the UNESCO would go

a long way in setting up the required facilities early.

Model Approval Schemes

A second activity under legal metrology which

is likely to be taken up in the near future relates

to the scheme for model approval. It is intended

that every weight, measure, or weighing or measuring instrument should be assessed thoroughly

and rigorously for its performance and life in the

model stage before regular production is undertaken. Only after it has been found that the model

meets with the requirements of law would the

manufacturer be given permission to produce the

instrument on regular industrial basis. Such a step

W'Ould ensure that reliable instruments would be

made available to users. Here also no major difficulties are anticipated in the execution of the

scheme.

In a developing country such a scheme of model

approval would be beneficial if it is extended to cover all types of instruments, whether they are used in trade or industry or in education or for

any other purpose. Every measurement made by

an instrument must have the accuracy expected of

it. Where it may not be possible to cover all measuring instruments under the weights and measures

law, it should be made a general practice that such

instruments which are not covered by the weights

and measures law should be submitted for model

approval under some other law.

Specifications for Instruments and

Accuracies

For practising applied metrology, legally or

otherwise, a system of well defined specifications

for instruments and tolerances on measurements

made with them has to be prescribed. The preparation of standard specifications for a variety of

products is the task of a separate national standards organization in a country. At the international level, the tasks of co-ordination of various

national standard specifications is carried out by

the International Organisation for Standardiza332-9,32 O—60 5 59
tion (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical

Commission (lEC).

In India, the Indian Standards Institution

(ISI) prepares standard specifications for vari- ous types of weights and measures and weighing

and measuring instruments, as also for a variety

of other products. It has produced over 4,000

standard specifications, codes of practice, methods

of test, glossaries, etc., in the course of the 20 years

of its existence, covering not only the requirements

of applied metrology but also other industrial

activities. It may be said that ISI has laid the

foundation on which the edifice of applied metrology can be built. The standard specifications,

codes of practice, etc. are revised from time to time to bring them up-to-date, and, unless otherwise necessary, in line with the international practices as also with those obtaining in developed

countries.

It is possible that many developing countries

may not be able to set up a separate national Organisation for preparing standard specifications,

codes of practice, etc. at the present juncture. It may be desirable for them to adopt the Indian

specifications, codes of practice, etc. because they

cater to the skills and requirements of developing

countries.

Training

The edifice of fundamental as well as applied

metrology depends for its sustenance on the con- tinuous manning of the organisations concerned

with competent personnel. In developing countries

such personnel is not readily available. It is es- sential that adequate training facilities should be

established for the various categories of officials. In India, the NPL has been training officials of

the weights and measures organisations in advanced techniques of fundamental and applied

measurements. Preliminary training in legal metrology is imparted at the All India Institute of

Weights and Measures Training at Patna, sponsored by the Government of India. Officials of the

Weights and Measures Organisation at the Centre

and in the States are trained in this Institute as

also at the NPL. The training facilities available

at both the NPL as well as the Institute have been

made available also to candidates from other

countries in Asia and Africa. There would be no

difficulty in accommodating trainees from developing countries for these training courses. A specialized training course in the technique

of preparing specifications is also conducted by

the ISI. This training course is also open to candidates from other countries and is being utilized

by them.

The training facilities available in India at the moment would satisfy the requirements of the

development of trade and industry today. The

facilities are, however, being extended to cover newer and newer activities. It is intended to extend

these training facilities to cover the work now being done under the aegis of the CGPM, the OIML,

the ISO and lEC.

Conclusion

While developing countries have to face a number of problems in the establishment of centres of metrology, they have been tackling them in a progressive manner. The principal difficulty

faced is in extending the activities to keep aJbreast of the progress of industry and technology. Every

effort is made by countries like India to extend the

facilities they possess in the field of metrology,

both fundamental and applied, to other countries

which may need them.

60
PROGRESS OF THE BRITISH CALIBRATION SERVICE

H. E. Barnett

Director, British Calibration Service, Ministry of Technology, Millbank Tower, London S.W. 1.

Introduction

Just over two years ago I was delighted to be

invited to your 1966 Conference and to be able

to tell you something of the factors which had led

to the proposal to establish in Britain a national

calibration service. As I told you then a statement

had just been made in Parliament (April 1966)

announcing the inauguration of the British Calibration Service which at that time had a staff of

one, and no other resources. What I propose to do in this paper is to give a brief report on our

progress during the period since then. The fact

that I am unable to do this in person is a disappointment to me and is solely due to the current

financial policy which has resulted in refusal of

funds for the purpose.

The First Two Years

The first steps taken were to recruit some headquarters staff and to establish an advisory body

called the Advisory Council on Calibration and

Measurement (A.C.C.M.) which is intended to advise the Minister of Technology on the country's

needs in this field, taking the widest possible range

of viewpoints. This Council is about twenty strong

and the members come from all spheres of activity,

being chosen for their knowledge of, or involvement in, measurements in some way or other.

The present headquarter staff includes a Director, two Deputy Directors, one covering elec- trical measurements and one covering non-electrical, and six Principal Officers each covering one

field, these being respectively L.F. and D.C. elec- trical measurements, H.F. electrical measurements, mechanical measurements, measurements

on fluids, thermal measurements and optical

measurements.

The Advisory Council first met in November

1966 and agreed upon the need to establish technical panels, one to deal with each of the fields of

measurement already mentioned. Six panels have

now been established, four initially and the last two recently ; each is about ten strong and consists

of members chosen for personal expertise, from

industry, government departments, research* or- ganizations and academic organizations (e.g.

universities).

These panels first devoted their activities to assessing needs in each field and priorities for

tackling different types of measurement within

that field. They then set out to determine and

specify the criteria which should be applied in

assessing the suitability of a calibration laboratory

for operation under the scheme.

A principle which has been adopted is that the

participation of a laboratory shall be entirely

voluntary. No attempt is being made by B.C.S.

to press anyone to join nor is there any intention

of attempting to set up any new laboratory, at least until it has been established that voluntary participation will not produce sufficient resources to meet the known or foreseen demand.

The Treasury, in agreeing to the establishment

of the scheme, required that the headquarters unit

be made as far as possible financially self-supporting, while recognizing that this would, of necessity, take some time to achieve. Each laboratory

therefore has to pay a single fee for initial inspection and an annual fee for subsequent supervision

plus a small percentage of the fees charged for

calibration work done under the scheme. It is hoped that the participating laboratories will be

able to recover the charges by attracting more cal- ibration work from their customers. The first few months following the inauguration

of the Service were spent in recruitment, and in

setting up the Advisory Council and the first four

Technical Panels. These panels were in operation

by the beginning of 1967, and while they were es- tablishing the criteria for laboratory approval the

H/Q staff wrote the rules which govern the operation of the Service. By the summer of 1967 the or- ganization was able to invite applications from

laboratories for approval.

The first applications were processed, the first inspections arranged, and the first approvals were announced in January 1968. To date (May 1968)

six laboratories have been approved, three in the

field of Panel 1 (D.C. and L.F. electrical) and

three in the field of Panel 3 (mechanical). Two

more in the mechanical field will be announced

shortly. Progress in the field of Panel 2 (H.F.

electrical) has been delayed mainly by the lack

of U.K. national standards in this field. It is hoped

that new arrangements for the programs in the

61
national laboratories will go some way towards re- moving this difficulty and that some approA^als in

this field may be possible by the end of 1968. The

first assessment in the field of Panel 4 (fluids) is now in hand. Panels 5 (optical) and 6 (thermal)

have just been established and are working on the

criteria appropriate to their fields. Progress with the first approvals has been rather

slower than was hoped. This has been partly be- cause many interested laboratories, having di- gested the published criteria, have deferred

application while making improvements in their

facilities, and partly because in building up a technique for laboratory assessment all concerned

have been feeling their way. It has been found

that considerably more elTort than originally esti- mated is necessary, not so much on the assessment

itself but in preliminary discussions and in ar- ranging evaluation and checking of laboratories'

working standards.

Initial inspection is normally by a team of two, one being the Principal Officer concerned with the

field of measurement covered by the laboratory,

the other being a member of the appropriate technical panel. Supervision for the future will be by

a combination of visits (analogous to initial as- sessment visits) and a fairly comprehensive

scheme of audit measurements.

B.C.S. has recently been granted Eoyal approval for a badge for use by headquarters on corre- spondence and by participating laboratories on

certificates of calibration. The NCSL Secretariat

has been sent a complete set of B.C.S. Publications to date, and a set of schedules showing the

measurements for which the first six laboratories

have been approved.

In presentmg this short summary of progress

to date I send best wishes for the success of your

Conference and look forward hopefully to the

possibility of reporting a lot more progress by the

time of your next gathering.

Appendix 1. General Conditions Applicable to Approved Laboratories

After Grant of Approval

1. Continuing approval of a laboratory demands con- tinuous compliance with the general and special conditions and with the restrictions as laid down on the Approval Certificate and schedules.

2. Re-calibration of laboratory standards and equip- ment at stated intervals, and maintenance of adequate

records of such re-calibration, as set out in the relevant Publications covering the various fields of measurement,

are of vital importance.

3. To give further assurance to the accuracy of measurements, a laboratory will be required to undertake from

time to time (at its own expense) an occasional set of check measurements (audit measurement survey) as

specified by B.C.S. H.Q.

4. A supervisory visit may be made at any time to an

approved laboratory by the Director, B.C.iS., or by his authorised representatives. Access shall be granted for such visits at all reasonable times and facilities for proper

inspection shall be made freely available.

Retention and Renewal of Approval

5. Approval is retained by the laboratory for the period

stated on the Approval Certificate, provided that it is not suspended or withdrawn as set out below.

6. Renewal of approval will normally be made by the

issue of a fresh Approval Certificate. Where circumstances warrant, a new application form may be required, but no application fee will be payable unless an extension

of the scope of approval is requested.

Suspension or Withdrawal of Approval

7. Approval may be suspended by the Director, B.C.S.,

if, temporarily, the laboratory fails to comply with the

conditions of approval.

8. Approval may be withdrawn for a breach of the conditions if, in the opinion of the Director, B.C.S. , satis- factory conditions cannot be restored within a specified time. Re-instatement of approval may involve re-assess- ment of the laboratory in a manner similar to that for a new application, and payment of an appropriate charge.

9. No rebate of the fixed annual fee will normally be given in respect of any suspension or withdrawal of approval. Fees for Assessment and Supervision of Laboratories

10. Continuance of approval depends on prompt pay- ment of fees as laid in Publication 0031. Changes Afifecting Approval

11. Any significant change in the approved conditions must be notified in writing in advance (or, if this is not

possible, then as soon as possible) to B.C.S. H.Q. Such

a change may involve one or more of the following

considerations

:

a. Head of Laboratory

The approval of a laboratory refers specifically to the head of the laboratory. If he leaves, then (unless a deputy

has been approved by Director, B.C.S.) the approval must

be reconsidered. One of the most important features of approval is the standing of the head of laboratory. His

qualifications, experience, independence, and authority,

and his relation to the directors of the enterprise, have

to be considered in relation to the size of the laboratory

and the nature of the work. If a change of head is pro- posed, details of the proposed new head of laboratory,

together with a covering letter explaining the situation, should be sent to B.C. S. H.Q.

6. Approved Signatory

Similarly a proposal for a new approved signatory shouiv* be sent to B.C.S. H.Q.

c. Organisation

Any changes in the relationship between the head or lu^ laboratory and the management of the operating orgamsation must be reported.

Variation of the Scope of Approval

12. Any variation of the schedules must be agreeu

writing by B.C.'S. H.Q. The scope of the laboratory ma.}/ be reduced, in accordance with the facilities and tne wishes of the laboratory, or may be extended subjeci

to re-assessment of the additional facilities or re-as- sessment of the laboratory as a whole. Any such exien

sion will be treated as an application for approval in spect of the additional facilities offered.

Publicity

13. The Approval Certificate and schedules are to be open to inspection on demand by anyone who uses the

British Calibration Service or may wish to do so; dunli- cates will similarly be available at B.C.S. H.Q.

62
14. It is incumbent on an approved laboratory to ensure

that no claim is made on its behalf that B.C.S. approval

relates to any products, or to any services other than those

set out in the Approval Certificate.

15. Any use for publicity or commercial purposes of the grant of approval to a laboratory shall be either in ac- cordance with the following conditions or as otherwise

specifically agreed by B.C.S. H.Q.

a. No claim to be a 'B.C.S. Approved Laboratory' shall be made, either explicitly or by implication, unless ac- companied by a statement of the full details of approval

as set out in the Approval Certificate and its schedules, or

as provided in b. b. An approved laboratory may use, with variation, the phrase

:

'Listed in the British Calibration Service directory of approved laboratories'

If it is desired to accompany this by a statement of the

calibration facilities offered, these shall be specified only

by reproduction in full of the relevant part of the first schedule to the Approval Certificate together with any

relevant special conditions imposed.

c. The B.C.S. badge may be reproduced only by written

authority from B.C.S. H.Q. An approved laboratory may

be authorised to reproduce the B.C.S. badge on Certifi- cates of Calibration, on stationery relevant to the laboratory's activities in the field of calibration, on wall plaques

within the laboratory, and on house flags. A laboratory wishing to reproduce the B.C.S. badge

should, in each instance, submit proposals to B.C.S. H.Q.

for approval. When authority is granted for reproduction

of the badge on letter-headings and in advertisements, it will normally be for the badge accompanied by the single

word LISTED.

Masters suitable for photographic reproduction processes may be obtained on request to B.C.S. H.Q.

Calibration Certificates

16. Certificates issued under B.C.S. aegis must comply

with the requirements set out in Publication 0103. Records

17. The detailed records of all measurements must be

kept in the manner and for the period described by the

Director, B.C.S. Arrangements Between Head of Laboratory and B.C.S.

18. As defined in Publication 0101, the Head of Laboratory is the responsible person who maintains the link with B.C.S. H.Q. He must ensure that all relevant B.C.S.

rules, instructions, and procedures are observed, and that such B.C.S. publications are available for reference at the

laboratory. He must ensure that the Calibration Certifi- cate is a true record of the results of the calibration, and

that it is free from ambiguity. He must report anv diffi- culty to B.C.S. H.Q.

Arrangements Between Laboratories and Customers

19. The arrangements between a laboratory and its customer are ordinary commercial transactions. The

charges made by the laboratory, whilst open to inspection

by Director, B.C.S., or his authorL-^ed representatives, are not controlled by Director, B.C.S. Neither the Ministry

of Technology nor the Director, B.C.S. is responsible for any loss or damage alleged to result from any such

transaction. Appendix 2. Certificates of Calibration

Introduction

1. The varied requirements for calibration are best met by the preparation and issue of certificates by individual laboratories. Ease of recognition as certificates issued under B.C.S. approval and avoidance of ambiguity

in content require some uniformity in appearance and

adherence to certain rules. Attention has to be paid to the suitability of certificates for subsequent analysis by

automatic data processing.

2. The format and other matters set out below are mandatory for all Certificates of Calibration issued by an

Approved Laboratory under B.C.S. aegis.

3. Additional requirements for certificates of calibra- tion may arise in relation to certain measurements. Reference should be made to the B.C.S. Publication (s) on the

criteria for the approval of laboratories in the particular

field of measurement.

4. It is an over-riding requirement that no B.C.S. certifi- cate shall be issued in circumstances likely to reduce

public confidence in the integrity of the Service or the

correctness of the results reported.

Format and Materials

5. The preferred sizes of paper are A4 and A5 to B.S. 3176; it shall be white, and its durability and weight

adequate for the purpose. If fold-out sheets are included,

for example for extensive tables, they shall have a width

which is an integral multiple of the basic sheet width less an allowance for a filing margin (normally 1" to 1%"

per fold).

6. Printing or other marking shall be in black and may

be on one or both sides. Data entered may be in typescript or in manuscript, provided it is legible and durable. Washable ink shall not be used.

7. Durability must be such that the certificate will re- main fully legible under reasonable storage conditions,

including limited exiwsure to sunlight, for at least 5 years.

First Page Content

8. The upper part of the first page shall be a heading

including the B.C.S. badge (details available separately)

together with the content given below (see specimen on

page 5) : a. the words "ClERTIFICATE OF CALIBRATION"

b. the name and address of the issuing laboratory, as

stated on the Approval Certificate

c. the 4-digit approval number of the laboratory

d. the .5-digit serial number of the certificate. Serial numbers shall be allocated by each apixroved laboratory in a single series commencing at 00001 and used in chronological order.

e. the date of issue of the certificate, with the month

given as a word not figures, in the order : day, month, year

f. the niunber of pages to the certificate, including the

first page, and counting each side of the paper on which

any information is entered as one page.

9. The first page shall include the following statement

:

"This certificate is issued in accordance with the conditions of the approval granted by the British Calibration Service. The measurements reported were correct on the date of calibration. Copyright of this certificate

is owned jointly by the Crown and by the issuing labo- ratory. The certificate may not be reproduced other than

in full, except with the prior written approval of the

Director, B.C.S., and of the issuing laboratory."

10. The first page (or optionally, every page) shall bear the signature of a person approved by B.C.S. H.Q.

("approved signatory"). This signature accepts personal

responsibility for the correctness of all information presented. The signature shall follow the statement in the pre- ceding paragraph, except where the signature is given on every page. In the latter case, it shall be associated with the word 'Certified' at the foot of each page, and the statement on the first page shall precede any measure- ments reported, (see also paragraph 25).

11. The equipment, instrument or device in resi)ect of which the certificate is issued shall be clearly identified by

63
make, type number, serial number and list of units or ac- cessories where these are significant to the calibration.

12. When it is known that a calibration certificate has

previously been issued in respect of the same item, the relevant details of the preceding certificate (laboratory

approval number, certificate serial number, date) shall be

quoted.

13. The date of calibration shall be given where differ- ent from the date of issue of the certificate (see 8e.)

Page Headings and Additional Signatures

14. The top of each subsequent page shall bear

:

a. the approval number of the laboratory

b. the serial number of the certificate

c. the page number.

15. At the option of the head of the laboratory, the signature of the person carrying out the calibration ntay appear at the foot of every page.

Technical Content

16. When measured quantities are reported, all relevant

conditions of test shall be given : a. in full or b. by reference to a British Standard by number, year and clause or c. by similar reference to other published standard

or d. by similar reference to manufacturer's handbook

accompanying the item tested.

17. When measured quantities are reported, each result

shall be associated with an uncertainty of measurement

estimated in accordance with relevant B.C.S. recommendations.

18. When compliance with a specification, but not a record of actual measurements, is reported, relevant

clauses of the specification must be unambiguously identified. For compliance, the measurement results (indicated

values) shall lie within the specification limits narrowed

by the estimated uncertainty of measurement.

19. Any special conditioning, precautions taken, or adjustments made, must be reported in the certificate.

20. Any relevant environmental conditions (e.g. temperature) must be reported with the estimated variations during the calibration period.

21. If any significant instability or other adverse factor manifests itself before, during or after calibration, and is likely to affect the validity of the calibration, it must be

reported in the certificate. In serious cases, it is expected

that the laboratory would decline to issue a certificate.

Distribution

22. The certificate shall be supplied to the customer for the particular calibration.

23. A copy of each certificate shall be retained in the

issuing laboratory's records.

24. Unless otherwise agreed, a copy of each certificate of adequate contrast and legibility for microfilming shall be dispatched promptly to B.C.S. H.Q. A carbon, photographic, Xerox, or similar copy will normally be

acceptable.

25. The certifying signature must be legible on all copies

(see paragraph 10). Amendments

26. No supplementary measurement results shall be re- ported by other means, e.g. by letter, if the validity of a

certificate issued is affected.

27. Any correction or addition to a certificate shall be made only by the issue of a further certificate marked

'supplementary to certificate serial No. ' and

complying with the requirements of the foregoing para- graphs of this publication. The B.C.S. H.Q. copy of such supplementary certificate shall be accompanied by a letter explaining the attendant circumstances.

64
SOME REFLECTIONS UPON COMMON MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS

H. F. Monaghan

Registrar, National Association of Testing Authorities, Chatswood, N.S.W., Australia

Introduction

Your session Chairman has asked me to com- ment briefly upon several points which relate measurements and measurement systems to national progress and economic well-being. In particular, he was interested in the viewpoint of an

Australian toward international standards, dual

measurement systems, and the political and eco- nomic benefits of adhering to an internationally

accepted measurement system. The following re- marks are purely of a personal nature and are not to be considered as representing the viewpoint

of the Australian Government.

Weights and Measures

The dependence of Australia upon internationally accepted measurements standards is illus- trated by the fact that we have traditionally been an exporter of primary products. Our Government

has, in the past twenty years, been endeavoring to foster development of exports of industrial products, as part of a plan to lift the gross national

income. In these circumstances Australia must

adopt internationally accepted measurements,

standards, and definitions. I cannot speak gf the significance and advantages of a nation's adherence to a single system of

measurements, in anything like general terms. I can only say that Australia has used the English

system of weights and measures since 1788, but is realising that a better system will have to be

adopted soon. The English system is illogical, inconsistent and

inconvenient. But we learned it in our earlier years

and have used it with the ease that familiarity

brings. It is accepted and used for practically all purposes within the Australian community. It is only when we come into contact with other communities using or contemplating other systems that we are forced to appraise the adequacy of our own. Two years ago Australia adopted a system of

decimal currency. The success, and ease, of that

change made Australians amenable to proposals

that the weights and measures system be rationalised, also. At the same time, interest by the English

and American communities in metrication, and

commercial pressures from other communities,

such as Japan, make it essential that Australia

look very carefully at the possibility of change.

During 1967 a Senate Committee took evidence

across Australia on the adequacy of the English

system, the need for change, and the problems in- volved in retaining the old system or introducing

the new. It has reported a wide acceptance of the

desirability of a change. It has expressed the opinnion that the problems involved in changing will

be solved more easily if they are tackled soon. It has recommended introduction of the Systeme

International d'Unites.

The Government is not committed to acceptance

of the Senate Committee report. But it is widely

believed that action will be initiated soon, and that

the change will be effected in the next decade.

The change will not be an easy one. It will be

complicated by the desire of many industries to introduce other rationalisations at the same time.

But some industries are already changing. Pharmaceuticals are already made, sold and prescribed

in metric units. Foods are commonly labelled in

English units with metric equivalents.

Will this bring "a favo|urable environment for

industrial production of precision instrumentation"? I do not think that it will, in itself. An

environment of this kind is developed in a stable

industrial community which enjoys steady access

to good markets. The American and Swiss communities enjoy these environments developed by

quite different circumstances.

Introduction of metric units to the Australian

community may well provide an occasion for

clearing out old ideas and methods, tightening

systems and improving contact with foreign

markets which will bring about improved production of precision instrumentation.

We hope it will. We have noted the controversy presently being

generated within the United States concerning

adoption of the metric system as the sole legal

system, and recognise many of the arguments pre- sented pro and con. If your Government were to take this step in the future, I do not believe that

such a move would affect the industries of Australia to any significant degree. We would hope to have completed our own change, and to have de65
veloped metric export markets to such an extent

as to be relatively secure from the possibility of

the new competition which would arise from a converted American industry.

Product Quality Control—Industry or Government?

Australians are fundamentally opposed to government control. At the same time, they are sensible people. They

would not contemplate or tolerate anarchy in government, industry, or commerce. They realise that consumers look for quality, normally pay more

for it, and repeat orders when they get it. They

know that a good reputation cannot be beaten

in the public relations field, but can be destroyed

very easily by carelessness, or by foolish lack of

appreciation of market requirements.

The Australian community needs trade. The

Government is doing all it can to encourage export

of industrial products. Government and industry

are making vigorous efforts to show overseas con- sumers of Australian products that we can offer high quality on a continuing basis. We cannot contemplate control, by either government alone or industry alone of the quality and

reliability of export precision instrumentation. We

must have a form of control which is exercised by

the intelligent and willing cooperation of the two. The Australian Government reflects the views

and attitudes of the Australian people. It is therefore working vigorously to improve the Australian industrial image in foreign markets. To do

this, it must insist that only those products which

match clearly defined standards are released for

export.

Australian industrial managment reflects the

views of company shareholders. It must work

vigorously to improve the Australian image at home and abroad. Export markets offer entrancing avenues for expansion. Australian industrialists

have been more and more interested in these avenues. Here, rigid quality control pays dividends.

Industry is, broadly, interested in exporting goods

at a quality level which will build confidence and

bring about a continuing demand.

The Australian attitude is thus, not that government or industry control is needed, but that control exercised by each will bring maximum benefit

to the community, to the individual manufacturer

and then to the consumer.
PROGRESS IN ADOPTING THE METRIC SYSTEM IN THE

UNITED KINGDOM

A. H. A. Wynn

Chairman, Standing Joint Committee on Metrication

Ministry of Technology, Abell House, London S.W. 1

Introduction

For many years the adoption of the metric sys- tem throughout the United Kingdom has been

widely regarded as inevitable. A Government

Committee, called the Hodgson Committee, following an investigation concluded in 1950, "that a change from imperial to metric for all trade

purposes is sooner or later inevitable."

It was not, however, until 1964 that a repeated canvas of all British Trade Associations by the

then Federation of British Industry showed an overwhelming majority of industry, both in numbers and size, and including the engineering industry, in favour of the adoption of the metric system

by British industry. There were at that time some

exceptions : particularly the brewing, motor vehicle and oil industries. Representations were made

to the British Government by the Federation and

the Government undertook in May, 1965, to support the plans of industry for the adoption of

metric units "sector by sector, until that system can become in time the primary system of weights and

measures for the country as a whole."' A target date

of 1975 was laid down by which it was hoped that

"the greater part of industry would have

changed."

The adoption of the metric system by industry

since 1965 is not only inevitable but is now committed: and the "exception" industries are also making their plans. Discussion within each sector of industry is now concerned not with tohether to change but token to change. Timetables have be- come the essence of policy for each sector, large

and small. They are also the essence of planning

for the extension of metrication to the non-industrial parts of the economy (i.e. total metrication)

which is now (May, 1968) going forward for

decision.

Motivation

The dominant motive of industry in advocating

change to the metric system has been the needs of

export trade. The change has been seen as an es- sential part of the larger task of internationalisation of engineering and other standards and

practices involving measurement.

This motive is probably stronger in the United

Kingdom, exporting 14 per cent of Gross National

Product (1964) than in the USA, exporting only

4 per cent. The United Kingdom is vitally dependent upon overseas trade and must be concerned

about any factor, such as the continued use of

obsolescent units, that may impede exports or

contribute to isolation.

In all countries the use of metric units has steadily advanced in science and engineering for many

years. It became apparent that the Systeme Inter- national d'Unites would gradually become the

only world unit language in science and engineering. The change has therefore had the overwhelming support of scientists and engineers, who saw

the need for accelerating an inevitable historical

development.

Education

Since 1965 there has been a nation-wide discussion within the educational system aimed at programming the change in education. It is not the

British tradition for the Government to concern

itself with educational curricula. It is left to the

educational authorities themselves to adapt their

teaching to the needs of the community. The Royal

Society and Council of Engineering Institutions

and many other organisations have called meetings and conferences to discuss plans. The emphasis is now likely to change to the teaching of

SI units in primary schools in 1969. School ex- aminations are likely to be set in SI units not later than 1972. Students entering courses of liigher

education in science, technology, or engineering

during 1969 and thereafter will be taught in SI

units. Engineering examinations will be set in SI

units not later than 1972.

The great response by the educational system has

been dictated by the wish to eliminate redundant

learning. In an increasingly technological and

complicated world the task of simplifying teaching

to make room for more essential, modern knowledge and attitudes is seen to be a task of great

importance. The teaching of obsolescent units is time-wasting and it has been estimated that £100

million worth of teaching resources is expended in

the UK purely because of the extra efforts made to

67
Figure 1.

The timing of change vn the engineering industry—national averages for the

industry.

teach in units which are not coherent like those of

the SI and are in effect obsolescent. The learning

of obsolescent units is also regarded as discouraging and tedious to pupils, and an impediment to mathematical education. The teaching of SI units,

exclusively in due course, will provide a unique

opportunity for revising and modernising text- books and curricula.

Industrial Programmes

The plans for the adoption of the metric system

by industry are conceived by elaborate consultation. The British Standards Institution is the central coordinating body. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate

two provisional plans for the engineering industry.

These are both part of consultative documents and

may be revised before final adoption. These charts

summarize the answers to questionnaires widely

distributed to engineering industry. The British

Government has not supported these detailed plans

at this point of time (May 1968) . The Government

is so far only committed to support the plans for

the building and construction industry, which is, however, the largest industry. Only final plans are submitted to the Government for support, including procurement support, when consultation on

draft plans is completed and the procedure has

been completed only for the building and construction industry and for a few minor sectors of industry. It is lioped that the final programme for

engineering will receive Government support during 1968, including the shipbuilding and electrical engineering detailed programmes coordinated with

the broad engineering programme.

Figures 1 and 2 imply that about three-quarters

of the engineering industry will be working in SI

units by 1976. The building and construction in- dustry programme has a terminal date of January, 1973 for the completion of general

conversion, though maintenance will contmue in

imperial measurements for some time after that. The electric cable industry has a date for final change of 1970. Indeed different sectors of industry

have different, but compatible, time-tables. The

sector-by-sector approach to programming has

proved essential. Thus the adoption of internationally standard electric motors is already well advanced, but the change in the foundry industry is

still some years away.

Non-Industrial Programming

During the last twelve months industry has ex- pressed increasing concern at the absence of planning in the non-industrial sectors of the economy

including retail and transport. The Confederation

of British Industry has asked the Government to establish a Metrication Board to coordinate plans

for the change by the country as a whole and to lay down a target date of the end of 1975 for the

programmes for all sectors of the economy. These

sector plans (e.g. for the retail trade, for agriculture, transport and so on) will be framed by those

who will have to operate them and the planning

groups will represent all interests concerned, in- cluding Government. It is a vital feature of all this programme making that the result is the out- come of a consensus of all interested organizations.

Under date of 26 July 1968, the Minister of

Technology made the following announcement * in Parliament concerning a Report from the

Standing Joint Committee on Metrication,

Hansard, vol. 769, no. 164, col. 1167-8.

68
STEEL PLATES

STEEL WIRE

STEEL PRESSURE PIPES

steel pipes and tubes

(excluding pressuke pipes)

FERROUS SHEET METAL

COPPER TUBES

ELECTRICAL CONDUIT (STEEL) ELECTRICAL CONDUIT

(PVC)

PLASTIC TUBES

PLASTIC SHEETS

SCREWED FASTENERS

UP TO 6 MM. ('/4') SCREWED FASTENERS T

ABOVE 6 MM. (1/4")

SCREW CUTTING TOOLS

FROM as7o TO 75%

AVAILABILITY

Figure 2.

Expected availaMUty of metric materials.

"Change to the Metric System in the United

Kingdom"

The Reiwrt makes three main recommendations. First, that manufacturing industry can make the change efficiently and economically only ' if the economy as a whole moves in the same

direction on a broadly similar time-scale, and in an orderly way. Second, that a Metrication Board

sihould be established to guide, stimulate and co- ordinate the planning for the transition for tlie various sectors of the economy. Third, that any

legal barriers to the use of the metric system for

all purposes within the United Kingdom should be removed.

The Government accept the recommendation

that a Metrication Board should be set up as soon

as possible. Every sector of the economy need not move at the same pace. But there will be unnecessary confusion and expense, and great difficulties for industry, unless there is central machinery

for co-ordinating the programmes of change for the various sectors.

The Board will be advisory. The adoption of the

metric system must be gradual, through democratic procedures based on the widest consultation. Membership of the Board will, therefore,

reflect the interests of industry, the distributive

trades, education—for which there are important

implications—and, particularly, the general public and consumers. The Board -will need to ensure

that the distributive trades and consumers are

consulted and have ample notice of projjosed

changes.

No compulsory powers will be sought. There

can be no question of compensation ; the costs of adopting metric weights and measures must lie where they fall. The Government agree that programmes for the different sectors of the economy can be properly co-ordinated only if there is some general

guidance on the timing. They therefore accept the end of 1975 as the target date for all provisional programmes, with the qualification that if this date proves to be unreasonable for any particular

sector, the programme may aim at an earlier or

later date. An initial task of the Metrication
Board will be to submit to the Government an

appreciation for each sector, including, so far as

practicable, the costs and other considerations

involved. In the light of this, programmes can be drawn for individual sectors. The Government

will not be committed to endorse the programme

for any sector of the economy before final pro- posals for that sector are submitted. The Government accept that legislation will be needed to remove obstacles to the adoption of metric units and to define the units to be used. Further consultation is, however, needed before the timing of the legislation can be decided. Ar- rangements will be made to coordinate the in- terests of Government Departments so that they

play their full part. The educational system will need to keep pace

with, and to some extent anticipate, changes. The

conversion will stimulate industrial and commercial modernisation and the rationalisation of pro- duction by variety reduction. We must also use it to help our export trade by harmonising our

standards with those of our customers overseas. The adoption of the metric system in the United

Kingdom will represent a major change affecting

many aspects of the national life, and I hope that

publication of this Report will lead to a wide

public discussion of the issues involved. Economics

There has been much discussion of the costs and benefits of metrication. The preparation of

any global balance slieet has proved impossible.

Some of the motives fo^r change that are essentially

imponderable have been discussed above. It has be- come apparent during the last three years that the

most important economic incentive is to be found

in variety reduction, notably of building construction and engineering components. Metrication has

become almost an overt excuse for far-reaching

exercises in rationalization. Thus in the construction industry a modular coordination, based on a

100 mm. module, has become the main objective,

and it is almost incidental that the basic modules

are expressed in millimetres. The varieties of raw

materials such as rod, bar, sheet, or components

such as fasteners or cables, are being greatly re- duced as part of the exercise. In appropriate cases important machines are being redesigned in metric

terms with reductions in the number of components

and resulting economies of 20 and more per cent

in overall manufacturing costs. How much of the

reduction is attributable to metrication cannot be

estimated. The real dividends come not from metrication in the abstract but from redesign and

from consequential reductions in stock holding

and concentration of production on a much re- duced range. In particular the opportunity is being

taken to eliminate components such as Whitworth

fasteners, British Standard pipe-flanges, electric motors with non-international dimensions or other

features that are not acceptable in export markets.

Tlie economic dividend cannot be estimated. There

are, however, many manufacturers who make one

product for the home market and a different product for export, and there are many manufacturers

using both imperial and metric units in their drawing offices and workshops, whose production costs will benefit from the adoption of a single, simplified system of units for all purposes.

Conclusion

The British metrication programme must be

seen as part of a worldwide historical change that

must continue its inevitable progress. The developing programmes in the United Kingdom are no more than an endeavour to accelerate and coordi- nate a change that was proceeding in any event. Experience since 1965 has emphasized that the

change must still be gradual and must be pro- grammed sector-by-sector and that there is proibably an optimum rate of change for each sector. In the end there may have to be a sweeping-up

operation involving compulsion but this is not yet

being contemplated, much less planned. Legislation of an enabling character is under discussion

but this will be primarily directed to enabling

amendments to existing legislation to be undertaken piecemeal by statutory instruments aimed

at removing obstacles to the change. The optimimi

timing must take fully into account the rationalization, variety redtiction and international standardization which take time but produce the main

dividends. Metrication will indeed only pay off

if the dominant thought is how to make profits out

of the change.

•70
IRELAND AND THE METRIC SYSTEM

M. E. O'Hagan

Industrial Research Center, Dublin

The following news release was made by the Irish Government on January 12, 1968:

Ttie Government have had under consideration the question of the more general use in the economy of the metric system of weights and measures. They note that

in Great Britain, the only other European country not using the system, there

is a policy of conversion which it is expected will be largely implemented by 1967. The Government welcome indications that some sectors of Irish industry are anxious to prepare for the general introduction of the metric system and urge on all sectors that they should plan for orderly conversion. The Government

would expect that the greater part of Irish industry will have converted to the metric system by 1975. The Government propose, as the move towards the use of the metric system

develops, to promote the move by seeking tenders in metric terms and encouraging

other public authorities to do likewise. Regulations involving reference to weight

or measure (for instance in regard to retail trade or transport regulations) will in due course be expressed in metric terms. The giving of greater emphasis to the use of the metric system in education will be encouraged. Standards declared by

the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards will be progressively recast

in metric terms. Legislation will be examined and where necessary amended. It will be the aim of the Government so to time their moves as to encourage conversion

whilst at the same time avoiding unnecessary difflculties for industry, the

distributive sector or the public generally.

It is envisaged that the speed of change will vary from one sector to another,

depending in some cases on the physical replacement of equipment. The task of converting industry to the metric system is clearly one calling for consultation and

cooperation between different sectors of industry and between industry and

distribution. While the primary responsibility must rest on industry itself, the Government will be prepared to assist where called upon by promoting inter- sectoral discussions and the Minister for Industry and Commerce will keep

developments under review in relation to metrication generally, while the Minister

for Local Government in consultation with him will be responsible for supervision

of the work in regard to the building and construction industry. . . . The Need for Change

Ireland, a small island adjacent to Great Britain,

is divided into 32 counties of which 6 in the northeastern section of the country are still under British

rule. The other 26 counties constitute the Republic

of Ireland with a population of just under 3 million people. Ireland is predominantly an agricultural country, but in accordance with modern

trends the industrial sector of the community is growing rapidly and assuming increased importance. Historical circumstances saddled Ireland

with the imperial system of weights and measures and it is this system which prevails today.

The question of whether Ireland should change

to the metric system was first raised in 1953. On

February 9th of that year the Minister for In- dustry and Commerce appointed a committee to consider and report to him on the desirability of

establishing a metric system of weights and measures and a decimal system of coinage. Reporting on November 26, 1959 the Committee advocated

the adoption of the metric system, stating

... we came to the conclusion that the metric

system of weights and measures is instrinsically

sui)erior to the imperial system and that its su- periority for all purposes is sufficient to justify

tlie inconveniences and expense incidental to its adoption. We recommend therefore, that the metric system be adopted at the earliest practicable date as the sole statutory system of weights and measures for use in the country.

The Committee felt that the inherent advantages

of the metric system, in facilitating arithmetic and

reducing learning time in school, outweighed the

disadvantages created for our foreign trade, most

of which is conducted with the U.K. which, at that

time, gave no indication of going metric. Some

members of the Committee however did not share

this point of view and in a Reservation stated that

In view of the extent of our external transactions and their diversity we are of the opinion

that a change by this State alone would give rise

to difflculties in relation to foreign trade in all

its aspects which, on balance, would outweigh any

benefits to be derived in matters of a purely in- ternal nature. We are also influenced by the con11
sideration that the adoption of systems of weights

and measures, or coinage, different from those in general use in Britain and the Six Counties would

seem to run counter to the prevailing international trends towards integration and rationalisation

in economic affairs between countries with im- portant trade connections. The statement went on to conclude that "we do

not favour a change in either system except in con- junction with Britain and the Six Counties.

The soundness of this reservation camiot be

denied. The bulk of Ireland's foreign trade is with

the U.K. For example, in 1967, 50 percent of our imports came from the U.K. while 73 percent of our exports went there. Imports from metric

countries accoimted for 36 percent of our 1967

total and exports to metric countries amounted to 14 percent.

By virtue of its small population and limited

resources, foreign trade is particularly important

to Ireland. A comparison of OECD countries,

based on 1964 trade statistics published in the

OECD Observer No. 20, February, 1966, shows

total imports to Ireland as 42.6 percent of its G.N.P., the highest percentage among the 21

member countries. The figures for some of the

other countries were as follows : United Kingdom,

16.8 percent; France, 11.4 percent; Germany, 14.0 percent; Japan, 11.5 percent; Denmark, 29.1 per

cent; and United States, 2.9 percent. Total exports

as a percentage of G.N.P. for Ireland were 27.8 percent as compared with 13.4 percent for U.K.,

10.2 percent for France, 15.6 percent for Germany, 9.7 percent for Japan, 23.3 percent for Denmark, and 4.1 percent for U.S. In 1967 the G.N.P. was £1146 million and imports amounted to £391

million, of which 51 percent were classified as manufactured goods or machinery. In the same

year manufactured goods accounted for 32 per- cent of the total exports of £276 million.

Problems of Changing

Trade of any nature requires a consistent system

of measurement as a frame of reference. The actual

system used within a particular country or econo- mic unit is of only secondary importance. People

get used to a system and it becomes second nature

to them. The technician in the workshop has a

J'feel" for 1/32" or 0.001" and finds no trouble

in operating in these units. When you talk to him

of millimetres he has no conception of the size you are referring to. The housewife knows what

to expect when she asks for a pound of sugar or a pint of milk. They are convenient measures with

which she is familiar. There is no advantage to her in buying 500 grams of sugar or a litre of milk.

Just as it is essential to have a consistent system

of measurement for internal trade, it is also

essential to have a. uniform system of measurement

for international trade. The world is unfortunate

in being saddled with two major systems of measurement, the imperial and the metric. Of the two.

the metric undoubtedly has the greater appeal. It

is a logical decimal system which facilitates arithmetic and is more pleasing aesthetically. Wliile it

is questionable as to whether the inherent advantages of the metric system of themselves justify a country's change from imperial to metric, there

is no doubt that a single system of weights and

measures is more economic and desirable than a dual system. The disadvantages of a dual system

extend to all phases of production and trade in- cluding purchase of raw materials, manufacture,

inspection, packaging, pricing, distribution, and

sales. On Ma,y 24, 1965, after representations from in- dustry, the British Government announced its support for a change to the metric system of

weights and measures in the United Kingdom. The

target date by which it is hoped that the greater

part, of British industry will have made the change

to metric in 1975. This means that hj 1975, assuming our trade with the U.K. remains essentially as it is now, over 90 percent of our foreign trade

will be with metric countries. Following the British Government's decision, the choice facing Irish

industry and the Irish Government was to stick

with the imperial system and put up with the dis- advantages in foreign trade, or to go metric with

its long-term advantages. Maintaining the status quo would have put Irish industry at the disadvantage of having to operate a dual measuring

system and would have left Ireland as the only

country in Europe not on the metric system. The

change to metric in Ireland thus became inevitable,

and consequently in January of this year the Irish

Government released the statement at the beginning of this paper giving support to the change.

However, the statement is cautious: the Government is not willing to commit itself wholeheartedly to spearhead the change. Responsibility

for this is left to industry who must take the

initiative. The reason for this is simply that the

Government does not want to be left with the

bill. If the Government makes a positive state- ment requiring industry to change to metric

within a specified time period then it immediately

lays itself open to claims for grants to help in- dustry to make the change. The Government rightly or wrongly does not want to commit a large

section of public funds to such an expense. As

time goes on, however, the Government will be

obliged to play a, more positive role to ensure proper coordination and timing of the change.

As demand for products in metric sizes and to metric specifications increases, so will the pressure on individual companies to change over to metric.

The change will be forced on the manufacturer

and will have a sound economic basis. The demand

for metric products will come from metric countries to which our exports go. Some Irish companies are already working exclusively in metric

units.
Retail trade on the home market will have no

such lever providing the incentive to go metric. In

the sphere of retail trade, particularly for the con- sumer market, the need for positive Government

action is critical. If the country is to go metric

there is need for a coordinated and planned campaign. Legislation has to be changed, education

and text books revised. A practical way of introducing the change has to be devised so as to cause

as little confusion as possible for the man in the

street, and proper control of the change is re- quired to protect the consumer from exploitation.

Meeting of the Challenge

As in Great Britain, it has been the building in- dustry which has taken the initiative and is paving

the way to metric in Ireland. In recent months

at the direction of the Minister for Local Government, An Foras Forbortha Teoranta (The National Institute for Physical Planning and Construction Research) has set up a committee to coordinate the change to metric for the building

industry. At its first meeting on May 27, 1968,

the committee unanimously proposed that Ireland

adopt the International System of units. At a later meeting it was agreed that the Irish building in- dustry should in essence follow the British program for the change to metric, aiming to complete

the change by the same date. A second committee within the Department of

Education is currently considering the steps to be

taken to implement the change to metric in education, while the National University has established a metric committee to consider appropriate

changes in University curriculae.

It IS expected that the Government will shortly

appoint further committees to deal with other as- pects of the change to the metric system of weights

and measures. The Institute for Industrial Research and Standards in Dublin will probably be

appointed as the central coordinating body for

the change to metric in Irish industry, and play

a role corresponding to that of BSI in Britain.

The Institute is a State sponsored body established

as a service to Irish industry. It carries out re- search and development work for industry, provides a wide range of test facilities, draws up

Irish Standard Specifications and offers technical

information and advice on an extensive range of

topics. Recently the Institute established a Metrology Section responsible for maintaining the physical standards of measurement for the country, and

for disseminating the units of measurement

through the provision of an adequate calibration

service. The primary electrical standards for the

country are maintained in an Electrical Standards

Laboratory at the Institute and an extensive service is provided for the calibration of electrical

instruments. The primary standards for dimensional metrology are maintained in a second laboratory where there are facilities for the calibration

of most dimensional gauges. In addition to providing calibration services, the Metrology Section

at the Institute offers advice and assistance on questions of measurement and calibration.

Trade Measurements in Ireland are regulated

by the Office of Weights and Measures. Imperial

standards of mass, length and volume are maintained in the office and used for calibrating local standard weights and measures. The measuring

instruments employed and the accuracy of meas- urement are consistent with trade requirements

but are not adequate for the demands of industrial

and scientific measurements. There is need for ra- tionalisation between the Office of Weights and

Measures and the Metrology Section of the IIRS.

The proposed change to metric in Ireland has af- forded a perfect chance for a review of the entire

system of weights and measures in the country,

and the author is currently drafting proposals for

the new system.

Linked with the change to metric is the change

to decimal currency in Ireland. Following recom- mendations by the Committee appointed in 1953

the Government, in Februaiy 1962, decided in

principle to adopt a decimal system of currency,

and appointed a further committee to advise on

the timing of the change and the steps necessary

to effect the change in the most economical way.

In addition to other recommendations, this committee in its report of 1964 supported the earlier

committee in advocating the 10/- cent system.

Despite the recommendations of the two committees for the adoption of the 10/- cent system the

Government, on the 23rd of April, 1968, finally

announced its decision to introduce the £1- cent system, thereby maintaining parity with the British system. This decision was reached in view of

the extremely high volume of trade between Ire- land and the U.K., and for the convenience of people travelling from Britain and the Six Counties

to Ireland, over 8 million in 1967. The specific

program for the change to decimal currency has

not been finalized, but decimal day is the 15th of

February, 1971 and the change is expected to be

completed within two years of that date. Conclusion

To summarize then, one can say that the move

to the metric system in Ireland is under way.

While a great deal has not yet been done in concrete terms, the decision has been made and the

change is inevitable. Trade and industry in Ire- land are relatively small and unsophisticated, so that in comparison Avith other countries the

change to metric should be effected quite easily

without undue expense or inconvenience. The

change from the imperial to the metric system of

weights and measures is basically a simple task

in any country. While one cannot dofubt or belittle the short term inconveniences and expenses, the

73
change creates no major difficulty given a proper

frame of mind and sound planning. Many people seem to have a mental block about such a change

and cower back in fright of what appears to be

a mammoth and nigh impossible task. The first and perhaps the most difficult step is dispelling

this misapprehension. The metric system is logical

and simple. The change to metric is simple when

conducted in a logical manner. The advantages of

a single universally accepted system of measure- ment are undeniable. It is to be hoped that this

ideal will one day be fully realized.

The author is indebted to Mr. Jim Daly, chairman of the advisory committee on the introduction of the metric system in the building industry,

for his kind assistance.

74
THE VALUE OF INTERNATIONAL MEASUREMENTS

R. H. C. Foxwell

Chairman, The Wayne Kerr Company Ltd., New Maiden, Surrey, England

Introduction

May I first thank you, and particularly your

Chairman, for inviting me to this Conference. I have been here before and I hope, in spite of what

now follows, that I may be allowed to come again.

Your National Conference of Standards Laboratories is an enterprise which commands great re- spect in my country and we follow your activities with admiration and not a little envy. If I may say

so, the N.B.S. also sets quite a standard and there

are many of us who regard this place, Boulder,

as a typical example of the American ability to look forward into the more speculative areas of

measurement technology and then do something

about it. When your Chairman wrote to me last December

inviting me to take part in the Conference he suggested nine topics for consideration and I was

foolish enough, in replying, to agree to offer com- ment on four of them. Briefly these were:

(1) the dependence of our nation upon, and the

value of, internationally accepted measurement

standards and definitions in promoting exports of

scientific instruments

(2) the political significance of a common meas- urement system in promoting closer economic and

social ties with other nations

(3) the advantage or disadvantage of Government control of the quality and reliability of ex- ported precision instrumentation

(4) the advantage or disadvantage of imdustHal

control of the quality and reliability of exported

precision instrumentation.

These are loaded questions and the more I think

about them the more tempting it becomes to try

and find means of evading the issues. However, I am here and clearly I must say something. Fortunately the Moderator has limited me

to ten minutes and it ought to be possible to keep

out of trouble for ten minutes.

Export Significance

First then—the dependence of our nation upon,

and the value of, internationally accepted meas- urement standards in promoting exports of scientific instruments; and, of course, the importance

of internationally accepted definitions. I can perhaps best sum up the British view of

the importance of this matter by reminding you

that when our new Ministry of Technology was

established in 1964 one of its first basic departments was the Standards Division set up under

the leadership of Mr. Arthur Wynn. This Division immediately became extremely active in

promoting international discussion of standards

in all the contexts of the word. The appointment

of Arthur Wynn himself is not without signifi- cance. He had had considerable industrial ex- perience and was able to develop in a very short

space of time a high degree of mutual confidence

between his Department and the various sectors of

Industry with which they came into contact. His

Organisation often leads but it makes no attempt

to compel. Consultation and co-operation with In- dustry are quite fundamental to their work

philosophy and, amongst many other things, this

rapidly led to the establishment of the British

Calibration Service, with the Scientific Instrument

Manufacturers' Association aiding and abetting

by submitting draft proposals in the first place.

The raison d'etre for the British Calibration

Service, and incidentally the argument which

prised the necessary financial support out of Her

Majesty's Government, was the development of our export potential.

One could quote example after example of the

accuracy of an instrument being disputed by a foreign customer for no other reason than that

there was no common definition of the measured

parameter or no common definition of the conditions of measurement. Most measurements made

in Industry are, after all, relative. The absolute

measurement is normally reserved for more

esoteric establishments and so, inevitably, common

standards, in the sense of an agreed point of

reference and an agreed measurement procedure,

are essential to secure confidence in the validity

of the result achieved. Only by obtaining this commonality of approach can a proper trade in in- struments be secured and, if and when this happens, all countries can take full advantage of the

innovative skill of their trading partners.

332-932 O

m 6 75
Establishing traceability of industrial measure- ments to internationally compared, standards

through specified procedures and disciplines, is the primary task of the British Calibration Service. There can be no doubt but that both Government and Industry in the United Kingdom are equally committed to achieving success for this venture. From the industrial or commercial point of

view this is a subject which is not easily quantified in terms of business gained or lost. I can only

say that in the United Kingdom we are becoming

increasingly convinced that we must know what we mean by, say lOO @ 1 MHz, whether we

describe it in German, French, Russian, Japanese,

or English.

Political Implications

Now, political significance—and we are still trying to concentrate on this concept of a common

measurement system. I think we in the U.K. in- cline to the view that the political significance of

a common measurement system in promoting

economic and social ties abroad is negligible unless

it has achieved a substantial increase in the volume

of trade. I would suggest to you that respect for

another country's trading ability, and the intimate

personal contacts which are established through it, will contribute far more to the development of a

social compatibility than the interchange of holidaying visitors on any foreseeable scale, jumbo

jets notwithstanding. Also I suspect that the ex- istence of a healthy mutual trade must constitute a restraint upon quarrelling and ambitious politi- cians. It is possible, for example, that tensions

in the Middle East would be greatly reduced if there were a strong circulating trade between the

countries concerned.

It must surely now be considered an established

fact that the rate of growth of mutual trade between advanced industrial nations will be very

largely dependent upon the success of the various

national bodies concerned Avith the effort to achieve

commonality of standards and internationally ac- cepted reference standards of measurement.

If my premise is right, the growth of mutual

trade which must follow international standardisation will indeed have a profound effect upon

the political scene.

If, then, in this vital cause we achieve commonality of standards, commonality of measure- ment procedures, commonality of language or

definitions, it follows logically, I think, that cus- tomers at home or abroad will often wish to re- ceive an assurance that the products they are buying truly conform to the rules, and, because quite

a lot has already been done to meet these objectives, there is a growing interest in quality as- surance procedures impartially carried out.

The Role of Government in Quality

Assurance

I am now going to try and deal with questions

3 and 4 together, because really I take them to mean "What about the Government? Should they or should they not control this part of the exercise?"

To me, quite definitely, they should not. But I am

none the less convinced that Government patronage will usually be necessary to establish confidence

in the foreign buyer that an assessment has been

carried out with proper freedom from bias. On the other hand, competent assessment of

quality and reliability implies a high degree of

expertise in the assessor and where will the

expertise be found? Except perhaps in defence

equipment and—I hasten to add this, because I remember where I am—in the development of

national standards—except in these special areas the best expertise must normally exist in Industry,

though often, no doubt, within the Universities.

Therefore any authority providing quality assur- ance must, if it is to achieve the necessary status, include representatives from all three sections of

the community. This is certainly the pattern developing in Europe. The British Standards Institution is a fair example of what I mean and, inci- dentally, it undertakes a substantial amount of

quality assessment work, using its Kite mark. It derives its subscription income from Government

and Industry in equal proportion but there are only three Government representatives on the

governing Board of 28. The rest are drawn from

Industry, the Universities, and senior permanent

officials of the Institution. This is enough to ensure

the Institution's image abroad as an independent

national body, whilst leaving Industry ample

opportunity to give effective voice to its commercial needs. (I must add, of course, that it also leaves Her Majesty's Government free to dis- own the Organisation if that should ever prove

expedient.)

Most of you will be aware that the British and

Soviet Governments have recently signed an Agreement to collaborate in certain industrial areas and this has led to the formation of a number of Anglo-Soviet Working Groups set up to study ways and means. It is a particularly interest- ing exercise because both sides are seeking to develop trade between two very different industrial

systems within the framework of existing political

restrictions. One of the Groups, need I say, is con- cerned with standards in all aspects, including

hardware, another with instrumentation per se. These Groups will normally comprise six to eight

members from either side. In the first case, Standards, the United Kingdom representation is shared

between Her Majesty's Government with its responsibility for the National Physical Laboratory, the National Engineering Laboratory, The

British Calibration Service etc., then the British

Standards Institution and Industry, with eight

76
members in all. In the second case, Instrumentation, there are five industrial members and the

Head of the Instruments Branch of the Ministry

of Technology whose presence, I must say, is of

the utmost value in providing not only a direct

communications link with Government, but also the implied assurance of official support and

national backing, which is welcome to the party

of the other part, if you follow me. This co-operation with Government may or may not be developing as smoothly in other industries in Britain—we

can assume it is but I just do not know—nevertheless in our Industry, Scientific Instruments,

there can be no doubt that a very solid basis of

partnership is being forged and the question of

Government control really does not arise. Problems of Education

May I just touch on the question of education.

I am a member of the Advisory Council on Calibration and Measurement, to which Mr. Barnett

of the British Calibration Service referred in his

paper. This, of course, is a body set up to advise our Minister on the steps Government can take to

assist in the development of a national measure- ment system. Apart from our obvious duties in

establishing criteria for apj)roval of Calibration

Laboratories operating within this system, we are

very much concerned with promoting education

in the general field of measurement. I think I

recall Dr. Grisamore in 1966 referring to a shortage of recruits to this subject at his university in

Washington, D.C. We have precisely the same

problem—measurement is not fashionable—but we

believe that it is important to encourage teaching

of this subject in the universities, not only at the

graduate level where some understanding of basic

measurement philosophy is essential in all science

subjects, but also by specialist training at the postgraduate level. It is tlie intention of the Council to do everything in its power to stimulate interest

in the subject amongst our student population.

Conclusion

At the risk of being trite—and this really has

connection with my previous observation—may I say that most of us when we are assembled find

that we are preaching to the converted. I am sure

all you gentlemen would not be here if you were

not interested in the benefits to be derived from the

logical but never fanatical development of international standards. The trouble is, there are not

enough of us and we really must give attention to the attraction of converts. It seems to me that this

is one of the most important tasks facing us at

this present time.

77i
LARGE PROBLEMS OF SMALL COUNTRIES

Lars Frank

Research Institute of National Defence, Stockholm, Sweden

First of all I should like you to consider that

the situation for a "super power" such as the

United States is rather unique. While America

is self-supporting in almost evei-y respect and

could in principle go on quite well if it were

isolated from the rest of the world, this is cer- tainly not the case for the majority of the

smaller countries. Thus it is not astonishing that

the per capita import and export are considerably lower in the United States than in the

smaller industrialized countries, being, for ex- ample, approximately one fifth of Sweden's.

Now, do not get alarmed. Your inferiority in

this field is just an example of the fact that you

can satisfy most of your needs yourselves. If you

look upon the whole world as an entity, you can- not say that it is doing badly just because its per

capita export equals zero. If, on the other hand,

you choose to look separately upon each state within the United States and include the inter- state trade, you will presumably get substantially

higher figures than apply to most European

countries at present. Nevertheless, I think that

the interstate trade would be the closest analogy

you can get.

Of course there are a number of differences

which one must not overlook. The States in

America have a common language, a common

currency, and no customs or other formalities for

the interstate trade, while the opposite is true for

the European countries. True, the creation of the

European Common Market and the European Free Trade Association is bound to reduce

the latter barriers. Furthermore, while it may be

natural for Americans to confine most of their

trade to the United States, it is an old tradition

for many European countries to do business all over the world.

Now, you know much better than I what tre- mendous importance the NBS and the American

National Measurement System have had upon

the economy and development of your Nation.

It would not be the same if every State had had

its own units, even if the conversion factors were known.

For the very same reason, most of the countries in the world have adopted the metric sys- tem. The sole exceptions in all Europe have been

Great Britain and Ireland but since the British

Commonwealth is no longer the world of its own

that it used to be, Britain is turning more and more to continental Europe and consequently is planning to adopt tlie metric system. After that,

America will probably have to do the same,

sooner or later, or else it might have to content

itself with a decreasing share of the international commerce. On the other hand, the American market_ is very attractive and some companies may be will- ing to sacrifice rationality for a chance to enter

it and stay there. What other explanation can there

be for the fact that Volvo switched from metric

threads some ten years ago? An analogous situation applies to the wall-board made in Sweden.

To suit the export to Great Britain, the standard

width is four feet, in spite of the fact that all dimensions are given in centimeters on the drawings used for housebuilding in Sweden. Thus it seems that an eventual abolishment of the inch

would have direct consequences also in some

"metric" countries.

Thus far I have mentioned only the well- known problem of the world being divided into one metric bloc and one inch bloc. Now, turning

to the field of precise electrical measurements, I should like to draw your attention to the fact

that there seems to be a slight risk of a similar

development into blocs in that field as well, al- though the differences are much smaller and con- cern fewer people. This is because the accuracy

of the absolute determination of fundamental

electrical quantities is inferior to the precision of

relative measurements. Thus, while in principle

all countries use the same definitions for their

volts, ohms, amperes, etc., in practice there_ do

exist discrepancies of some 10 parts per million.

As yet, most people do not bother about 10

ppm, but in a number of fields, higher precision

is actually needed, and these fields seem to be

growing. Generally the constancy of the units is more important than their conformity with the

definition or with the units used in other countries. For instance, measurements and calibrations made in the United States refer to the National Standards as maintained by the NBS and

not to the international units of the BIPM, The

78
argument goes something like this : "We could not

possibly keep changing our calibrated values

every time tney manage to make a better absolute determination in England, Canada, Australia, France, Russia, Germany, or Japan,

or—for the sake of the argument—in Monaco,

Mesopotamia, or what have you."

This perhaps may be true, but—honestly spo- ken—is it not also a question of national pride

and prejudice (not only in America but as much

in the other countries with resources for absolute determinations) ? If one counti-y's determinations were really much more reliable than

those made in other countries, due consideration

could be given to that fact by forming an appropriately weighted international mean, in much

ithe same way as the BIH is now giving the U.S.

Frequency Standard a weight of five in the in- ternational atomic time system.

The present system, where the most developed

nations keep adhering to their own national

standards and use the BIPM only for intercomparisons (the results of which are never really

used), is bound to cause trouble in a shrinking

world. In Sweden, for instance, certified standards are sometimes bought from Germany,

sometimes from England, sometimes from the

United States, and sometimes from other countries. This, as you can understand, often makes

communications difficult and forces people to apply different corrections on different occasions.

We once asked Dr. James L. Thomas, for- merly of the NBS, what he thought should be

done about it. He told us to develop our own

national standards and make people stick to them. But in rebuttal, let me go back to the analogy of the individual States in America. Suppose that the U.S. measurement system was

recognized on paper only but not used by all the

States. Suppose that a few States, e.g.. New

York and California, maintained their own

units according to their own absolute determinations. If then Nebraska complained about the

inequality, would it really help if it too adopted

standards of its own, thus adding one more new

set of units? I think not, and so did the founding fathers who gave all the States a common

measurement system.

If you measure distance not in miles or kilometer but in the time it takes to travel between

the places in question, then you will find that

the_ whole earth is much smaller now than the

United States was some 70 years ago, when

Treasury Secretary Lyman J. Gage advocated

the need for a fedei-al standards laboratory. Furthermore, the international trade is now much

larger than the interstate trade of Gage's time,

so it seems that his arguments should be even more relevant today, applied on a worldwide

basis. Hence, I think that the time has now come when all countries should make their units equal

and give ample support to the BIPM, so that it can be to all the countries of the world what the

NBS has proved to be to America.

Finally, my national pride forces me to tell you

about a recent change of a different kind of

standard in Sweden. Last year—after much too long a hesitation—we changed our road traffic system from left to right. The desirability of

such a change had been made quite clear for a long time, because all the countries in continental Europe keep to the right. But every time a changeover was discussed the costs were found

to be prohibitive and the matter was postponed.

Finally however, the increased international traffic made a change unavoidable and we simply

had to pay, no matter how high the costs were. Of course our wallets were hurt badly, but we

are convinced that in the long run the investment will prove to be a very profitable one in- deed. The funny thing is that the costs that

looked absolutely prohibitive 20 years ago were

just a vei-y small fraction of what we were

forced to pay now. One more thing—a large fraction of the costs was caused by the necessity of replacing all the

buses. It might appear that this could have been

avoided if we had maintained a dual system for a couple of years, allowing the old buses to drive on the left side until they were worn out, while

the new ones kept to the right ! However, for some

reason we decided against it, and if you people

think that I am still hinting something about

inches and national units—well, so be it

!

79
DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CANADIAN MEASUREMENT SYSTEM

J. G. Cameron

Quality Assurance Laboratories, Department of National Defence, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

A report on the Federal-Provincial Conference held in Ottawa in February 1968 concerning the proposed "Standards Council of Canada," some Canadian attitudes toward standardization activities and consideration of the adoption of the International (Metric) System

in Canada.

The Standards Council of Canada

In February 1968 a Federal-Provincial Conference was held in Ottawa concerning the establishment of the proposed "Standards Council of

Canada."

The function of the new standards body will

be to create a co-ordinated and dynamic national

standards programme, adequately organized and

financed, and representative of all levels of Government, Industry and the consumer. The major objectives would be

:

i. to foster the formulation of truly national

standards and to promote their general adoption in

both the public and private sectors

;

ii. to provide for the effective coordination of

the activities of all existing Canadian standardssetting bodies

;

iii. to provide for the establishment of standards

where a need arises which is not met by the exist- ing standards institutions

;

IV. to harmonize standards practices in different

industrial sectors and to ensure adherence to the consensus principle in standards formulation with

particular respect to the interests of the consumer and the public at large

;

V. to provide for effective representation of all Canadian interests in international standardization activities, which have a direct bearing on the

access of Canadian products to export markets.^

In taking the initiative in proposing the formation of a Standards Council of Canada, the Federal Government has acted in response to the broad

national interest and intends to consult fully with

interested governments, primary and secondary

industries, industrial and trade associations, and

consumer representatives before its implementation. The consensus principle, whicJi the council plans

to apply throughout its operations, shone through

in the communique issued after the meeting, "—It was the consensus of the meeting that a council

should be established to promote and coordinate

' Briefing papers on a National Standards System for Canada.

1968. Canada. Department of Industry.

standardization activities in Canada and Canadian

participation in International Standards Organizations." Consultation with the trade, industry, consumer and other groups is now under way to gain their appreciation of the situation, in depth.

An Effective Environment for

Standardization

By creating an effective environment in which

standardization activity can flourish, many other

benefits may come along as well—simplified product designs, reduced engineering effort and production costs, adequate levels of quality, reliability

and performance as well as lessened inventory

costs, to mention a few. Unless the standards that

are produced can provide solutions to practical

problems, as well as listing the best theoretical approach, we could find volume after volume stored

carefully on book shelves, xiusted in accordance

with the periodicity specified for good libraries but

not filling the total need to the proper extent. The Council would promote the form'aition of

a Standards Information Centre with a comprehensive index of all domestic, foreign and inter- national standards. Such a centre would dissemi- nate information throughout Canada and encour- age the introduction of standardization systems

and techniques. To a representative preparing to attend an international meeting, it would be an

extremely valuable source of information. A basic

facility of this nature is already in operation.

It is quite possible that translation of foreign

language standards, and perhaps English-French

translation services may be required.

The formation of an integrated national standards organization in our coiuntry is a necessary

first step in the establishment of a responsible

body which could act as a kindly father, if you

will, who keeps pointing the direction and patting

the backs of all members of the standards family

so that they stay on the sarne roadway, taking

curves together and lending each other a helping

hand on the steeper hills.

80
It is my understanding that the Standards

Council will concern itself with fostering standardization activities in Canada and strengthening our International voice and efforts. Activities

arising from and operated in support of International Treaties would not come within the Council's purview; however, active liaison and close cooperation would take place in the overall in- terests of the nation.

Since the primary purpose of this paper is to inform you concerning what lies ahead for

Canada, little will be said of the scope of past

and present activities, although many are signifi- cant and far reaching in their impact.

Metrication for Canada?

There is a growing recognition in Canada of

the advantages in terms of trade in manufactured

goods, which would accrue from wider use of the

International System of Units. The metric system

of measurement is already legal in Canada and

has been since 1873 when the Weights and Measuures Act was passed. Although commonly used in

particular fields of science and industry, its adoption is inhibited by the widespread usage of the

foot/pound system in the North American market

and of course the many factors and costs involved

in conversion.

Those Canadians who are considering the matter of "Metrication" for Canada recognize our

trade relationships with many nations throughout

the world and in particular our close association

with the United States of America. I think it would be reasonable to asslume that your country's

attitude toward metrication and the recent steps

taken in that direction have great significance for us and developments here will be under close observation from above the 45th parallel.

The general attitude of leaders in our scientific

fields toward metrication is not a question of yes or no but when. I think it would be fair to say that

the engineering and technical community has a similar attitude, however, it is too early to state any breadth of opinion in this area. The Government of Canada has not established a firm policy

in this manner, but for a period of two years consultations amongst senior members of government

departments and agencies concerned, such as Trade and Commerce, Industry, and the National

Research Council of Canada have been underway

and when specific legislation is brought before our

parliament, it is anticipated that some statement

of policy on conversion to the SI units would be

included. It is anticipated that this activity will be one of the prime and initial responsibilities of the

Standards Council. If conversion to SI is initiated,

dual measurement systems would be required

where necessary for interim periods of time, however, the short and long term benefits should be

similar to those yo|u have heard expressed here

today.

Special Considerations in Standardization Activities

Where do standards come from and how far do

they go ? Many answers can be given to this question. Let us consider one or two approaches.

The International Standards Organization

Recommendations are to be considered as the bases

for the national standards. Discrete sections can be

adopted without change, other sections adapted to

suit local conditions. However, if we look at industrial standards developed in other countries and

made available for adoption for domestic use in

Canada,, certain factors must be considered. In

many cases, we should be doing more adapting

when we adopt. Our level of industrial development and scale of production may be quite different

from that of the country originating the standard.

If the product is intended solely for use in

Canada, we must give consideration to the antici- pated environmental conditions in which it must

perform satisfactorily. If however we except to market the product in South America, Japan or

Australia, we should consider their environmental

conditions and other local factors as well. If it takes three weeks to deliver a product by surface

shipment to a foreign port, and customs clearance

action takes two or three more, the product formulation may have to be changed to extend the nor- mal shelf life to suit this situation.^

Just to bring the situation into focus, in respect to production and utilization of precision devices, our exports of measuring, controlling, laboratory,

medical and optical equipment amount to about

0.15 percent of our Gross National Product. Imports of approximately the same types of devices

make up 0.4 percent of the Gross National Product.

It is interesting to note that Canadian use of domestically produced material of the same class runs in the order of 0.6 percent of our Gross

National Product.^

Except for the opinions already expressed, it is too early, at this particular time, to report the

general attitude of Federal and Provincial governments, primary and secondary industries, industry

and trade and consumer associations, universities

and labor unions toward "Metrication." However,

it is expected that we will be hearing more and more on this subject in the reasonably near future.

Those of you who know the Standards com- munity in Canada will recognize that certain re- alignments and changes are on the horizon and

there are many interested "Standards Organization" watchers who are training and focusing their

telescopes at this time. Some of you have participated with Canadians in the American Society for

Testing and Materials, The International Standards Organization, The International Electro3 Cameron, J. G., A Proposed Programme of Quality Control for Canadian-Made Products, 19-65.

5 Dominion Bureau of Statistics.

81
technical Commission, the ABC Committee on

Unification of Engineering Standards, and in a host of other committee operations.

I trust that benefit derived from these activities has been substantial, and would expect that the

standards agencies in Canada and the United

States would look at the problem of "Metrication"

together since it has such significance for our

continent.

I would like to acknowledge the assistance and

information provided by officials of the Department of Industry, the National Research Council

and the Department of National Defense in the

preparation of this paper. Perhaps at a later date, I will have the opportunity of reporting future

developments to you on the impact of the Standards Council of Canada and the part Canada is playing in world-wide standardizing endeavours.

82
THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF INDUSTRALIZED

NATIONS DEVELOPING AND SUPPORTING A DUAL SYSTEM OF

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

J. S. Weber

Director, Engineering Methods, Hughes Aircraft Company, Culver City, California 90230

The United States, while producing one-third of the world's goods with only 6 percent

of the world's population, is nevertheless losing ground rapidly in foreign marketplaces,

with a resulting unfavorable balance of payments. As one of the key countries responsible

for stabilization of world monetary affairs, the U.S.A. must promote acceptance at home

avd abroad of the importance of achieving balanced trade relations among all nations. The achievement of this balance can be materially enhanced by the acceptance by all nations of existing international standards of measurement which are now used by 90

percent of the industrialized nations of the world. The accomplishment of this objective does not imply a "switch to metric system" for

U.S.A., nor a "switch to inch system" by metric countries, nor does it involve large expenditures for capital investment or re-tooling. The secret lies in developing flexibility in thinking

and attitudes among workers and management alike, in producing and selling things that

the people want to buy in a "language" they understand. That "language" must include written and spoken words, as well as standards for definition, terminology, performance,

and weights and measures. A dual system of measurement and measurement equipment is not only a possibility, but could be a profitable reality if preceded by careful planning and proper education.

Introduction

The United States, while producing one-third

of the world's goods with only 6 percent of the

world's population, nevertheless is losing ground

rapidly in foreign marketplaces, with an unfavorable balance of payments the result. Looking for a moment at published statistics, we find that during the last six years the U.S. share

of world export of goods to major countries of the

world has dropped 8 percent. Moreover, in a cate- gory where U.S. technological capability excels

the field of machinery and transport equipment,

including aircraft—^the U.S. share of export has

dropped 12.5 percent in the same period. This does

not mean that total U.S. export is declining; it means that other nations, including the many

which have recently industralized, are more aggressive in expanding and developing foreign markets for their goods.

As one of the key countries responsible for stabilizaition of world monetary affairs, the U.S.A.

must promote acceptance, at home and abroad,

of the importance of achieving balanced trade rela- tions among all nations. This carniot be done by

complacently accepting the known fact that at present U.S. exports represent only 5 percent of

its GNP. It can be done only by maintaining a share of world trade in balance with the fast ex- panding universal consumption of goods. It can be

done by recognizing now that world trade depends

on communications (understanding). It can be

done by developing a language now—a language

that is understood universally in situations where

the type, size, and performance of products must

be understood before they will be bought.

Past and Future

Figure 1 indicates where we are today in relation

to the big picture, and brackets the period of time

which we will be discussing. If we look in detail

at this figure, we will see the three segments of

time which are important to this discussion—the

first being the period just six to eight years prior to today, the second being the period six to eight years

after today, and the third being the period at the

end of the century.

The period prior to today is one we must look

at in order to analyze which decisions must be made

now to prepare us for the second time period. Then

our next time period (next six to eight years) is the

span where "pick and shovel" work must be done

to assure our complete success in the last third

of the century.

Looking back at the last seven to eight years,

let us examine the trend. Let's look at the data and

statistics available to show the impact of the then

existing languages on current world-wide conditions. Obviously, the percentage of change in the

83
M M ^

IMMEDIATE FUTUREFUTURE

FUTURE

share of world markets for goods fluctuates up and

down depending on many factors. Let's look at several figures of the U.S. share of various cate- gories of goods to indicate this point. (We picked

the United States since statistics of this country

are readily available.) Examining our share of imports of goods by all countries of the world during

the period 1960 to 1966, we find that in 1960 the

United States supplied 20.5 percent, and in 1966,

only 19.0 percent. In manufactured goods during

the period 1950 to 1967, we dropped from 27.3 percent to 20.1 percent. In transport equipment, we

dropped from 35.5 percent to 31.1 percent, and in

machinery, from 20.5 percent to 19 percent.

Let's look at how measuring systems (or language) play a role in the export situation. Figure

2 indicates that in U.S. exports of machinery and

transportation equipment to countries which are on the inch system of measurement, our share of

world imports has risen from 54 to 58 percent;

in our exports to countries that use the metric sys- tem, our share has dropped from 27 to 20 percent.

U.S. SHARE OF WORLD IMPORTS

MACHINERY & TRANSPORT EQUIPMENT

U.S. EXPORT TO INCH COUNTRIES

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1

27.6% m4^^ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pi"""i|ii

us EXPGRT TO METRIC COL'fNJTRIES

58%

20.6%

ALL { COUNTRIES

A •-

84
It is apparent that the lack of flexibility of this

Nation is not paying off and, as a matter of fact,

appears to be growing worse. Obviously, we cannot

be indifferent about the rest of the world, since

trade must be kept in balance for all countries.

Let's look in detail at the "pick and shovel" work

required now

1. Adequate planning,

2. Education and training,

3. Public relations,

4. Increased development of national and international standards,

5. Increased support of national and international standards organizations (both time and

dollars)

,

6. Increased distribution of ISO and USA

standards—worldwide, including multi-lingual

versions,

7. Development of dual systems, as appropriate,

and

8. Encouragement of technical exchanges of

data. Let's examine how the communications industries are doing. They have progressed with their

"pick and shovel" work much further than have

the other industries we have been discussing.

Wlien the International Telecommunications

Satellite Consortium (INTELSAT) was established in 1964, there were only eleven participants,

all of them developed nations. Of the 61 present

INTELSAT members listed in table 1, approximately 40 can be called developing nations.

In other massive international joint ventures,

such as the UK/French/Concorde Project, a com- mon language has been developed, is working, and

is making money for those who have done their

"pick and shovel" work early in relation to today.

Advances in high-speed modern communication

Table 1. Participants in the International Telecommunication Satellite Consortium

Algeria

Argentina

Australia Austria Belgium

Brazil Canada

Ceylon

Chile Colombia

Denmark

Ethiopia France Germany

Greece

India Indonesia

Iraq

Ireland

Israel Italy

Japan Portugal

Jordan Saudi Arabia

Kenya Singapore Korea South Africa Kuwait Spain

Lebanon Sudan

Libya Sweden

Liechtenstein Switzerland

Malaysia Syria

Mexico Taiwan

Monaco Tanzania Morocco Thailand

Netherlands Tunisia

New Zealand United Arab

Nigeria Republic

Norway United Kingdom

Pakistan United States Panama Vatican City Peru Venezuela

Philippines Yemen

systems, such as the one we are discussing, make it necessary that the U.S.A. also speed up the progress of developing compatible languages.

Conclusion

In summary, let me highlight a few of the key

conclusions, which by now might be obvious from

the foregoing statistics:

1. The balance of trade for all nations must he

kept within Idance itself. The events of the past

several months make it clear that every nation

must move at a relatively even pace. No one nation can progress too fast, nor can the rest progress too

slow, since the balance of trade among all nations

is the base for a sound worldwide monetary

system.

2. In order to achieve this balance of trade

among all nations, w-e must learn to corrvrmmicate

in the marketplace.

3. This communication., whether it be spoken

words, measurements, quality of products, etc., has

to become more standardized throughout the

world, if trade is going to become more and more

standardized throughout the world.

Since many of you are here as a result of

financial support, from your organizations, you

may wish to leave with a couple of thoughts on how to accomplish these three objectives:

1. Obviously your support and your understanding of national standards bodies is required

these bodies being those recognized by organizations such as ISO, lEC, and others.

2. You must be capable of supporting the needs

of, and loorhing closely with., those industries who

wish to start or wish to increase their dual capability. This must be a two-way street. You people may

have the capability and they may have the need,

but if you don't get together, these resources are wasted.

Please don't consider that developing a common

language, and supporting national standards

bodies, and working with dual-capability industries will themselves solve all the problems. A

major problem in many countries, regardless of

everything else, is the continuing spiral of in- creased costs and inflation which tends to price a country or a company out of the world market.

You all must recognize and discviss this subject.

As a final comment (referring back to the busi- ness of communication) , let us realize that not only

is the problem of the balance of world trade

helped through standard communication, but that a major fallout of this is an increase in understanding among those people involved in trade at the working level. Because you people know more

than most people, your understanding at this level may be more of a factor in solving some of the

problems of the world than is assumed through

normal diplomatic relations.

85
For your information, I have with me copies of

several dual dimensioning systems* being cohsid-

•IIURhes Aircraft Company Engineering Standardization Notice

No. 681, Incli-Metrlc Practice, June, 1<)68 ; Radio Corpiorntlon of America Drafting Practice 8^2-2, Metric Convernfon Tables, Marcii 1, 1967 ; International Harvester Engineering Standard

(nronosed) on Dual Dimensioning Practice, June 19'67. Copies are obtainable upon request to the NCSL Secretariat, % National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D,C. 20234. Comments may

be directed to the author, % USA Standards Institute, 10 Bast

40th Street, New York, New York 10016.

ered at the moment by the USASI National Committee on Dual Dimensioning Practices. You are

invited and encouraged to submit comments on

these, or to submit other plans, which will be considered prior to adoption of a national recommendation on this subject.

8«
NCSL 68

SESSION 5: NCSL COMMITTEE REPORTS

Chairman: W. L. Vandal

McDonnell-Douglas Corporation, St. Louis, Missouri 63166 INFORMATION COMMITTEE A-6

NCSL Vice-Chairman 0. L. Linebrink

P. H. Hunter

Western Electric Company, Winston Salem, North Carolina 27102

and

J. H. Blount

LTV Aerospace Corporation, Dallas, Texas 75222

Committee Membership

Paul H, Hunter (Chairman) , Western Electric Co., Winston-Salem, N.C. Wilbur J. Anson, National Bureau of Standards, Boulder, Colorado

E. J. Arsenault, General Electric Company, Philadelphia, Pa.

J. H. Blount, LTV Aerospace Corp., Dallas, Tex.

L. L. Darling, Univac, Utica, N.Y.

R. J. Frick, Sperry Rand Corp., Blue Bell, Pa. W. H. Gates, IBM, Federal Systems Div., Owego, N.Y.

R. T. James, Bendlx Corp., Kansas City, Mo.

H. L. Mason, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C,

J. D. Mitchell, Autonetics Div., NAA, Inc., Anaheim, Calif. E. L. Porter, McDonnell Aircraft Corp., St. Louis, Mo.

E. Quane, Bendlx Systems Div., Ann Arbor, Mich.

E. J. Sdacchitano, Grumman Aircraft Eng. Corp., Bethpage, N.Y. Joshua Stern, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C.

Introduction

Second only to the challenge implicit in the

chairmanship of a standing committee is the challenge of defining what the committee is supposed

to be doing. Fortunately, the founding fathers of

the National Conference of Standards Laboratories carefully defined the function of our Standing Committee on Information as follows:

"To identify sources of bibliographical information covering both instrumentation and management and to promote dissemination of this

material."

This is our political platform and, like all good

platforms, it has seven degrees of freedom. We

could go forward, up or down, left or right, or we

could stand still. I am happy to announce that we

have not stood still, although we have undoubtedly utilized several degrees of freedoni at the same time in order to enlist the special interests

and talents of as many committee members as possible. I am proud to say that exactly fifty percent

of the people on our present roster of membership

have made significant contributions to the four

main projects undertaken during 1967 and 1968. In

my experience with committees, ten percent participation has been more typical of committee

work, so we should be gratified, but not complacent. Projects

As you know, the membership of the NCSL and

its committees is drawn largely from professional

engineers and scientists in various fields relating

to measurement. However, the members of a committee may be, and frequently are, amateurs in the

particular field of their committee's activity. For

87
example, we of the Information Committee do not

necessarily have much, if any, background in the

science of information retrieval, even though this

is a most essential part of our basic function. To

be truly functional in such an area for which we

do not have professional training, we have no

choice but to lean heavily on our sponsoring or- ganization, the National Bureau of Standards,

and other sources of professional expertise.

Our Information Committee activity during my

eighteen months' tenure as chairman has embraced

the following four projects

Project No. 1: Analysis and presentation of the

results of the Information Committee Questionnaire that was distributed to all NCSL members

delegates in 1966 to determine their information

needs.

Project No. 2: Development and presentation

of a panel discussion at the Fourth Annual Measurement Standards Instrumentation Division

Symposium in Chicago last September, as guests

of the Instrument Society of America.

Project No. 3: Preparation and publication of

the first Information Committee bibliography for

general distribution to NCSL members. The topic,

chosen for its generality as well as its pertinence

as a source of background material for the Chicago panel discussion, was "Measurement Statistics." David Mitchell of Autonetics Division was

in charge of final editing, and you will find this

bibliography in your NCSL Newsletter 68-2 of

June, 1968. Project No. ^; Presentation of several papers

at this Conference, discussing various aspects of

the information retrieval problem as applied to the management and technical administration of

standards laboratories. Participating in this effort are Wilbur Anson, Larry Darling, and Frank

Sciacchitano.

In addition to these four planned projects we

have had a few spontaneous contacts with people

and organizations who asked special information on standards laboratories, or called our attention

to existing sources of such information. For ex- ample, the Aerospace Research Applications Center at Indiana University requested information, on behalf of one of their clients, on how to establish an industrial standards laboratory. A list of

references and specifications on standards laboratories was furnished, including references to papers on this subject presented at previous

NCSL conferences. A gradviate student requested

material on the management of standards laboratories for use in his master's thesis. The North

Carolina Science and Technology Research Center donated a number of pertinent references on NASA technology relating to aerospace measure- ment work and the general field of technical in- formation retrieval. Their offer to make an

extensive search on Measurement Standards

Technology, at a nominal fee, has been referred

to the NCSL Board of Directors.

MESTIND Session

As a report on the first of the four projects

planned and executed by the Information Committee since February of last year, Jim Blount will

present an analysis of the 1966 Information Committee Questionnaire. This analysis was partially

completed by my predecessor, Orval Linebrink of

the Battelle Memorial Institute, when I took office. It will be clear, from Mr. Blount's presentation,

why we selected the subject of Measurement Statistics for Project No. 2, the panel discussion session

at the ISA MESTIND session. The panelists were

Morris J. Brooks, Chief, Microwave Standards

Section, U.S. Army Metrology Section, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama

Joseph M. Cameron, Chief, Statistical Engineering Laboratory, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C.

Lawrence L. Darling, Manager, Measurement

Standards Laboratory, UNIVAC Division,

Sperry Rand Corp., Utica, N.Y.

John F. Hersh, Develop Engineer, General

Radio Co., West Concord, Mass.

Robert S. Powers, Jr., Systems Analyst, Radio

Standards Laboratory, National Bureau of

Standards, Boulder, Colo.

Wesley H. Shirk, Jr., Project Engineer, Laboratory Analytical Section, Leeds & Northrup

Co., North Wales, Pa. George D. Vincent, Director, Metrology and

Quality Control, Electro Scientific Industries,

Inc., Portland, Ore.

Harvey Weiss, Corporate Instrumentation and

Data Services Division, Grumman Aircraft

Corp., Bethpage, N.Y.

and the moderator was Dr. H. L. Mason, Office of

Measurement Services, Institute of Basic Standards, National Bureau of Standards. The panel of

eight experts was rather carefully selected to include three from the precision instrument development field, two managers of industrial standards

laboratories, two representatives of Government

standards laboratories, and, last but not least, one

authority on measurement statistics from the

National Bureau of Standards. Dr. Harry H. Ku

of the NBS Statistical Engineering Laboratory

presented a most appropriate keynote paper at

this session entitled "A Guide to Commonly Used

Terms and Expressions of Imprecision, Systematic

Error, and Uncertainty Associated with a Reported Value." This was published (Aug. 1968)

in the Journal of the Precision Measurement

Association.

The discussion question was: What does this

accuracy statement mean ? A measuring device has an advertised accuracy

of ±0.01 %. This means that

(1) Any measurement performed with this

device, in accordance with the manufacturer's

instructions will fall within ±0.01% of the true

88
value of the measured parameter ? (2) 99.73% (three standard deviations) of all measurements will be withiti ±0.01% of the true value —— ? (3) average (arithmetic mean) of ?j- meas- urements will have a 99% probability of falling

within st/ V in which s is the standard deviation of n measurements, t is the Student's coeffi- cient for 71-1 degrees of freedom at a 99% confi- dence level, and 3s = 0.01% . ? (4) Any measurement will have a 99%

probability of falling within st as defined in (3)

above . ? (5) The sum of all measurement uncertainties

due to systematic causes (as, for example, the

uncertainty of definition of the National Unit)

and random causes (as defined in 3 or 4 above)

will not exceed ±0.01% . ? (6) If none of the above, what is your inter- pretation of the accuracy statement , . ? It cannot be claimed that the problems of

accuracy statement formulation and interpretation were settled at this 90-minute session. There

was, in fact, no general agreement that accuracy

statements necessarily are or should be quantitatively or statistically standardized

!

Project No. 3 for the Information Committee was one of those open-ended undertakings, the

preparation of a bibliography on a specific area

of measurement science. The Information Committee is committed to such bibliographical undertakings, either by specific request of member

organizations or committees or, as in this case, when a survey of NCSL members had indicated a substantial need for such a special compilation

not available elsewhere. On pages 28-32 of the

June 15 issue of the NCSL Newsletter you will

find a rather extensive list of selected references on Measurement Statistics. The initial impetus for

this bibliography came, of course, from the 1966

Information Committee Questionnaire. In particular, Mr. Don Hervig of the U.S. Army Missile

Command Metrology Laboratory attached a list of references on measurement statistics obtained

from the Missile Command Library. This got us

off to a good start. I undertook to add comments

to these references and others that I came across, because I feel that the mere listing of titles and

sources of technical papers is often quite inadequate to describe their content. I wish also to acknowledge gratefully the major contributions of

Information Committee members L. Darling of

the Univac Division, J. D. Mitchell of Autonetics,

and W. J. Anson of the NBS here at Boulder. For

lack of time, a more recent contribution by Frank

Sciacchitano of Grumman Aircraft may have

missed the deadline for this bibliography.

It is a truism that no bibliography is ever complete, but in the case of our Information Committee

Bibliography on measurement statistics, several

rich sources of information were deliberately

omitted. For example, the exclusion of all textbook

material on the subject not only eliminated the in- numerable texts that contain some reference to measurement statistics, but also restricted our bibliography to papers which could be separately re- produced and distributed at a nominal cost and

without extensive copyright negotiations. Only a few of the many contributions to measurement statistics originating at the NBS are included, since

the NBS has the enviable ability to keep us up to date on the published work of its staff. We refer

you to Volume 1 of SP300, Statistical Concepts

and Procedures in Precision Measurements and

Calibration; MP265, a 300-page bibliography on

dimensional metrology; MP240, listing all publications through Jmie 1966; SP305, with listings

through December 1967 ; and current listings in the

NBS Technical News Bulletin. I thought you might be interested in the approximate size of standards laboratories that make

up the NCSL (fig. 1). This histogram is derived

(25%)

NUMBER OF STANDARDS LABORATORY PERSONNEL & 231

FiGUBE 1

89
from data prepared by Bill Bostwick and Paul

Long of the Directory Committee (A-7), which

are published in the latest edition of the NCSL

Directory of Standards Laboratories. I have classi- fied standards laboratories into groups according

to the number of professional and technical per- sonnel they reported as being primarily engaged

in standards laboratory work.

The average size staff of the 192 laboratories

listed in our 1967 Directory is 271/4 persons per

laboratory, and the median size is 53 persons.

It is not so strange, perhaps, that seven companies reported having no full-time standards

laboratory staff. What is strange is that two of

these companies are leading manufacturers of elec- trical standards. At the other extreme, one com- pany reported 231 people in their standards lab- oratory organization. They must be using automation ! Nevertheless, this is the best source of

information we have on the size distribution of

standards laboratories in the United States. Unfortunately, there is no industry standard

for assigning a fixed fraction of total company

employees to measurement standards work. In

fact, the problem of justifying the mere existence

of standards laboratories is still with us. I would

like to close with the suggestion that we do some

coordinated chewing on this problem.

RESULTS OF QUESTIONNAIRE

(J. H. Blount)

During 1966 a four-page questionnaire was pre- pared by the Information Committee under the

direction of Orval Linebrink, who was Information Committee Chairman at that time. The purpose was "to identify the most pertinent and useful

information needs, in both technical and administrative areas, of the NCSL membership." By

February of 1967 a total of 68 replies had been

received, representing about half of our NCSL

paid membership at that time. In order to interpret fairly the results of this questionnaire, it is necessary to point out that the 68 replies were not

necessarily a representative cross-section of our membership at that time. In fact, the roster of

companies and organizations that undertook to answer the ten rather difficult questions * would

make an excellent catalog of major aerospace and

governmental laboratories in the United States and Canada. There were few replies from instrument manufacturers, including the principal ven- dors of electrical and physical standards. Please

bear in mind, therefore, that the data I will present

are heavily weighted toward the large aerospace mers of standards and associated instrumentation.

In response to question number one, the supervisors replying indicated that, of the information

needs of their laboratories during the past 12

•Copies available on request from NCSL Secretariat.

months, approximately 76.5% were technical and

23.5% were administrative.

The result from question two was quite astonishing. Fifty-one laboratories reported a total of

96,741 hours of searching for information during

the previous 12 months. This is an average search

time of 1,897 hours per laboratory, or about 95

man-hours per week per laboratory. This no doubt

reflects the predominance of replies from the larger

and presumably more highly organized laboratories ; probably those in the upper portion of the

distribution of standards laboratory population

noted by Mr. Hunter. It is partly to reduce this

sort of disorganized activity that several members

of our Information Committee have been working

on the information retrieval problem. Many engi- neers and scientists tend to look upon information

retrieval as one of those activities that are just

part of the nature of things, like breathing. However, if you find yourself sinking in the sea of technical information, perhaps you need to learn a new

breathing technique. Wilbur Anson, here at the

Boulder Laboratories, and other members of the

Information Committee will present some suggestions tomorrow on how to hold your head above

this flood of technical and administrative information.

Question number three asked NCSL members to rank six common technical needs in order of

urgency to them; the result appears in figure 2. The numbers at the right are the summations of

7 minus E, where R was the rank order from 1 through 6 given to each question by each

respondent.

TECHNICAL NEEDS

SPECIFIC CALIBRATION PROCEDURES 238 DATA REDUCTION, ERROR ANALYSIS 216

GENERAL CALIBRATION 210 INSTRUMENT AND EQUIPMENT

SPECIFICATION 204

ESTABLISHING OPTIMUM

CALIBRATION INTERVALS

185

REFERENCE DATA 128

50 100 ISO 200 250

Figure 2

Obviously the development and availability of

specific calibration procedures leads all other problem areas in weighted response points. Fortunately

the NCSL Calibration Procedures Committee

(C-6) under the chairmanship of Don DeLauer

was well along with the establishment of the

NCSL Calibration Procedures Library at Vandenburgh Air Force Base at the time this questionnaire went the rounds. The Calibration Procedures

Committee will be reporting to us today on the

90
extent to which this first-ranking problem has been

resolved.

The second-ranking problem area, data reduction and error analysis, became the basis of the two

projects mentioned previously by our chairman.

Project number 2, the panel discussion on error

analysis, was an effort to get a reaction from sonie

of the leaders in the data analysis field on this

subject. Project number three, our Information

Committee bibliography on measurement statistics, was developed in an effort to provide basic

information which appears to be lacking, or at

least not yet assimilated by the standards laboratory fraternity.

Of course, the six problems listed were those that

the Information Committee considered important

at the time. In order to be democratic about this

whole thing, Section 4 of the questionnaire invited

respondents to list additional technical needs. Only

15 did so, and 8 of the 15 gave Personnel Training

as the further technical need. One or two votes each were given to semiconductor information, bibliography of calibration articles, recommended standards by name and model number, and information on available storage and information systems.

The six-part question on administrative problems was analyzed in the same maner as the one on

technical problems. As you will note from figure 3, Record Keeping and Property Control was only

a slightly more urgent area than Laboratory Organization and Policy Practices. Of course, all six

of these problem areas have technical aspects, but

they happen to be the sort of thing that laboratory

administrators have to deal with, especially when

setting up new laboratory facilities. Notice that

information on National Bureau of Standards

Capabilities and Services is well down the list of

needs. I am sure that this reflects the excellent

information services of the NBS, such as MP 262

and the new editions of SP 250 and SP 260, as well as the many notices in periodicals and else- where that provide up-to-date information. At

this time the Information Committee cannot claim

to have contributed anything of value to the solu- tion of these administrative problems.

As before, the list of six common administrative

problems was supplemented by a free-for-all inviADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS

RECORD KEEPING AND PROPERTY CONTROL

LAB. ORGANIZATION AND POLICY PRACTICE

AVAILABILITY OF COMMERCIAL

EQUIPMENT

LAB. ENVIRONMENTAL

REQUIREMENTS

NBS CAPABILITIES AND

SERVICES AVAILABILITY OF COMMERCIAL

CALIBRATION

FACILITIES

274

179

137

101

50 100 150 200

Figure 3

250 300

tation to list additional administrative needs.

Eight out of 15 respondents listed Education of

Corporate Management. This, of course, is basic to the very existence of standards laboratories. Other

problems mentioned were budget systems, history

systems, labor unions, selection and training, justification, and workload control. I believe that the best approach, by far, to most

of these problem areas would be to encourage more

interchange of experience between NCSL member

laboratories. I recommend this approach to the

1969 Information Committee and to such other

existing committees as Recommended Practices

(A-9), Work Load Control (B-1), and National

Requirements (A-8).

In closing, I wish to say that the statistical data

and comments generated by this questionnaire

have given our Information Committee a sense of

direction in planning our future activities. Member Delegates who invested time and thought in

their answers to the questionnaire have served the

National Conference well and in doing so have,

of course, served themselves and their companiea

We wish to thank each and every one of them, and

to urge the other 150 members to make their information needs known to the Information Committee. One way to do this is to get a copy of the ques- tionnaire from the NCSL secretariat and fill it out!

332-S32 O—69 7 91
RECOMMENDED PRACTICES COMMITTEE A-9

NCSL Vice- Chairman O. L. Linebrink

W. R. Holmes

Quality Assurance Dept., Ingalls Shipbuilding Company, Pascagoula, Mississippi 39567

Tlie first tentative RP "A Format for the Preparation of Recommended Practices" is nearly ready for distribution. Several others are in various stages of review, including one on "Preparation of Calibration Procedures."

STATISTICAL PROCEDURES COMMITTEE C-7

NCSL Vice-Chairman O. L. Linebrink

DeWayne B. Sharp

IBM Corporation, San Jose, California 95100

This Committee has developed sessions at both the 1967 and 1968 Conferences of the

Instrument Society of America. A Glossary of Definitions has been prepared and some

special statistical procedures have been prepared for intercomparing standard cells. Active

participants on the Committee are Joseph Cameron, Woodward Eicke, and Paul Pontius of

NBS. Others involved are Norman Belecki of the Air Force, Heath Air Force Base, Ohio,

and A. E. Warwich of IBM, San Jose, California. This Committee has as a goal the

production of a standard procedure for handling calibration data.

CALIBRATION PROCEDURES COMMITTEE C-6

NCSL Vice-Chairman J. L. Hayes

A. R. Baughman

.U.S. Air Force Metrology & Calibration Center Detachment, Vandenberg AFB, California 93437 Chairman C. D. Koop has announced that three proposals have been received for

operation of the Library, but none of these is satisfactory. The Library is being closed to permit purging the procedures for technical content, and will thereafter he closed for six

months, or until new arrangements for its transfer are completed.

92
MEASUREMENT AGREEMENT COMPARISON COMMITTEE C-5

NCSL Vice-chairman H. W. Lance

H. S. Ingraham, Jr.

RCA, Camden, New Jersey 08102

Committee Membership

H. S. Ingraham, Jr. (Chairman), RCA, Camden, N.J. H. D. Barnhart, General Electric Co., Syracuse, N.T.

J. S. Beers, Metrology Division, NBS, Washington, D.O.

J. M. Cameron, Statistical Engineering, NBS, Washington,

D.C.

F. K. Harris, Institute of Basic Standards, NBS, Washington, D.C. B. P. Hecklemann, Sperry Gyroscope Co., Great Neck, N.Y. W. B. McCallum, General Electric Co., Daytona Beach,

Florida

S. C. Richardson, General Electric Co., Schenectady, N.Y. W. F. Snyder, Electronic Calibration Center, NBS,

Boulder, Colorado

Workshops

Two workshop sessions were conducted during

the period 1967 to 1968. The first of these was held

at the NEREM Conference in Boston on November 3, 1967 and conducted by Shel Richardson

assisted by H. S. Ingraham. 't'he second was held

at the NCSL Workshop Conference in Anaheim,

California on January 26, 1968 and conducted by

H. S. Ingraham.

It was the primary objective of both of these

workshops to derive guidance from the membership of NCSL (and other interested attendees)

with regard to direction for the future program

of the MAC Committee. The need for MAC programs, the values derived and the problems with

past comparisons were discussed and a firm con- sensus received on continuation of the round-robin

comparison program.

Questionnaires

Following the NEREM Workshop, a questionnaire was sent to all participants in the 1965-66

MAC round robin, to derive much the same information that was discussed in the workshop ses- sions. Of 40 questionnaires set out, there were 20

returns, which confirmed the answers we obtained

at the workshop session. The direction for the

committee was definitive on the question of the

MAC round-robin programs, and provided many

improvements considered important by the membership.

Workshop and Questionnaire Results

Topics discussed in the workshop and the re- sponses to the questionnaire provided the answers

to several generalized questions. The values of the

comparison and the reasons for participation were

generally the same. Some of these factors were (1)

evaluation of measurement capability; (2) comparison with other laboratories at the same level

;

(3) increased confidence in measurement capabilities and techniques; and (4) the location of problem areas which would otherwise have been

unknown.

The last of these values, location of problem

areas, seems to be the most important value of

all, based on the emphasis which the majority

placed on this factor. It was very apparent that

the comparisons revealed deficiencies of measure- ment which were not previously recognized, and

allowed for corrective action to be taken before

real problems were generated.

The gripes about the program and the recom- mended improvements and changes were also very

similar. These included such items as (1) faster

data turnaround and feedback; (2) better scheduling of route ; (3) shorter routes ; and (4) smaller

packages.

There is no question that the timely feedback

of data and the final comparative results is vital to the overall value of the program. Data which

is 18 months to two years old is of little value in

timely improvement of problem areas and even a year may be too long. Attempts will be made to accommodate the needed improvements and to obviate the gripes.

The question of major importance, regarding

the continuation of the round-robin program, re- ceived an overwhelming vote to continue with

the comparisons.

Committee Meetings

Armed with the results of the two workshops

and the returns from the questionnaire, a meeting

of the MAC Committee was conducted at NBS,

Gaithersburg, Maryland on March 12, 1968, to

93
formalize plans for the committee and the goals

for 1968. The goals established for the committee were only three:

1. Reactivate the MAC round-robin program.

2. Prepare for the 1968 Standards Laboratory

Conference.

S. Revise the operating practices for MAC pro- grams for submission to the Recommended Practice Committee.

Round-Robin Comparisons

The results of the committee meeting with re- gard to the round-robin comparisons were as follows

1. The number of participants in each route would be limited to ten (10), with enough routes

established to include all who desire to participate.

2. Route supervision will remain within the

MAC Committee and members of the NCSL.

3. Participant coding, liaison, and data reduction and analysis will be coordinated by the NBS,

including what is hoped to be an improved data

feedback to participants.

A questionnaire has been sent to the full membership of the NCSL to obtain an indication of

their interest in participating in the program, and

to allow them to specify the area of participation.

In addition, the questionnaire includes a list of

special categories from which, if sufficient interest

is shown, additional comparison packages may be

generated. A minimum of ten members must show

interest in the same special category for a package

to be assembled and circulated.

Other Activities

The MAC Committee has under consideration

two other techniques of Measurement Agreement

Comparison, other than the current round-robin

technique. When these have been more fully ex- plored, either or both may be implemented on an

exploratory evaluation basis to a limited number of

volunteer laboratories.

In addition to these techniques, we are also pre- paring two revised Operating Practices for Measurement Agreement comparisons, one to fully

document the current National Round-Robin Comparison and the other to provide a Recommended

Practice for inter-company comparison programs.

Upon completion these will be submitted to the Recommended Practices Committee for

publication.

A Look Ahead

The primary emphasis of the Committee over

the next few months will be on the round-robin

program. It is hoped that this can be completed

within six months time, and that by the 1970

Standards Laboratory Conference, we may have

completed three round robins and have activated one or more improved techniques of comparison

as well.
PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS COMMITTEE B-7

NCSL Vice-Chairman H. W. Lance

F. J. Dyce

Martin-Marietta Corporation, Orlando, Florida 23800

Committee Membership

Frank J. Dyce (Chairman), Martin-Marietta Corp., Orlando, Fla. 23800

Forresit C. Russell, NAA/Space & Information Systems Division, Downey, Calif. William B. McCollum, General Electric Company, Apollo Support, Daytona Beach, Fla. 32015

Introduction

This Committee was an outgrowth of the 1966

NCSL Conference, and its aim was to review and

attempt revisions of the Government specifications

which affect calibration and standards laboratories.

The Committee was initially chaired by Bill Vandal of McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, St. Louis.

He was followed by Forrest Russell of North

American Aviation, Downey, California, from

whom I received the chair in February 1968. I adopted the goal of striving toward one general

specification covering standards laboratory re- quirements to meet Government regulations.

Committee presentations have been made at NCSL Workshops at the ISA Conference in New

York, at the ISA Conference in Chicago, and at the NCSL Workshop in Anaheim, California (Reference: NCSL B-7 Committee Reports—Russell,

1966, 1967, 1968).

At the 1967 Workshop, Forrest Russell reported on the Committee's progress (Russell, 1967). Donald Ransom reviewed the NASA Apollo Metrology

Requirements (Ransom, 1967), and I presented a paper on Subcontractor Calibration Program Requirements (Dyce, 1967). All of these papers were

concerned with the basic drive of this Committee,

which is to remove vagueness and duplication from

the present specifications which control Government procurement.

Current Effort

The following progress report is a first step to- wards achieving our goal. It is a small step in that

it covers only ten of the specifications which affect standards laboratories. It is only a committee compilation and therefore does not represent any government action or acceptance.

During the past year the Committee has assembled ten specifications which reference calibration

operations. It was felt that if this -compilation

could be presented in a tabular format and made

available to NCSL members it might prove useful. At the conclusion of this session we would be

interested in hearing your comments on this document. However, regardless of value to you personally, it does represent a necessary step towards

our final goal. In order to generate a document

which contains all specification requirements, one must first know what the specification requirements

are.The document here described sets forth the

specification requirements in the following 18

major categories of calibration w^ork : 1.0, applicable specifications; 2.0, Government audit; 3.0, subcontractor calibration system; 4.0, system

description; 5.0 calibration records; 6.0, recall sys- tem; 7.0, labelling; 8.0 calibration procedures; 9.0, reliability test equipment; 10.0, traceability ; 11.0,

standard certificates; 12.0, environmental controls; 13.0, state of the art; 14.0, calibration intervals; 15.0, maintenance; 16.0, storage; 17.0, per- sonnel; and 18.0, evaluation. We considered

specifications MII^Q-9858A, MII^C-45662,

MIL-HBK 52, MIL-I-450607A, MIL-STD 120,

MIL-I-45208A, MIL-STD 790C, NPC 200-2,

NPC 200-3, and NHB 5300.2. If anyone in the

audience has any other pertinent Government

specifications which we did not consider, we would

be grateful if you would bring them to our attention. In addition, if anyone has any binding in- dustry contract specifications, we would appreciate

obtaining copies of these also. As this Committee

continues its work, it will survey industry for its non-government-enforced requirements, which to our understanding are based on the prime contractors' interpretations of the Government

specifications.

The 18 categories selected by the Committee

are intended to best group the parallel but conflict- ing specification requirements. Each major cate9'6
gory is divided into subcategories; e.g., 14.0,

Calibration Intervals Purpose, lists 14.1 Interval

Basis; to 14.55, Lengthening Intervals. I show two pages from this document—those

concerned with Calibration Interval Purpose.

MII^Q-9858A, MIL-I-45208, NPC 200-2, and

NPC 200-3 state that "measuring and test devices

shall be calibrated at established periods to as- sure continued accuracy." MIL-C-45662 and

MIL Handbook 52 do not indicate a specific purpose for calibration intervals. MIL-I-45607A re- quires "periodic inspection for continued ac- curacy" and adds a requirement for "inspection

prior to unserviceability." MIL-STD 120 states that "gages must be rechecked to assure they do

not accept defective or reject acceptable material,"

and NASA Handbook 5300.2 adds the requirement that "calibration intervals provide the re- quired confidence level of the equipment."

This is an example of a category which is covered by most of the specifications. We shall see categories that appear m only one specification

and note that there is no one specification that has

all the requirements, and this points out the ridic- ulous state of affairs in which our calibration is controlled by ten different documents. What is even more of a problem is as shown in Category

3.0, Subcontractor Calibration System. As sub- contractors we are liable for audit of all the re- quirements of each specification that applies to

us. It is conceivable that we could pass an audit

to one specification one day, and fail an audit to another specification another day. One often wonders in this business why we are so often audited.

It is no wonder when one considers the number of

documents involved, as well as the different prime

contractors' interpretations of these documents.

As I have indicated, this document is a worksheet to be used to generate a composite specification including all these requirements. We feel it is a useful document, as it permits checking your

standards laboratory organization against all existing specifications.

How often have you been asked: What is the

specification requirement for accuracy ratio? In

what specification is it located ? Is that a binding

specification on your contract ? When I was asked

that question, I had to pull out my ten specifications and start leafing through them to find the

right paragraph in each one. Now, with this document I can look under the category for accuracy

ratio and locate the specifications which have ac- curacy ratio requirements. So, even though this is not a binding document, it does serve as an index.

If you are required to reference the official text, the applicable paragraph numbers are given for

each specification.

Conclusion

Our Committee's accomplishments for the past

year have been (1) to make our goals known to interested parties at various workshops throughout the country and (2) to generate a Government

calibration specification sequential tabulation. This

tabulation will be available pending any editing

that results from this meeting, possibly through

NCSL as an official document if approved ; if not,

limited copies may be obtained from my office. Our

work for the next year will be to generate a composite specification from the above tabulation and

to circulate it to NCSL members for comments.

CATtGOKY MILiU-9ti58A MlL-C-45662 MIL HANDBOUK 32 MIL-I-45607A

14.0 k,2. 3.5.7 Calibration The measuring The contractor

intervals and test devic es shall maintain a purpose shall be call system for periodic brated at inspection of equif established ment before periods to tolerance limits assure con- are exc eeded or un- tinued serviceability accuracy

.

results.

96
CATEGORY MIL-STD. 120 MIL-I-'tjaoe.i MIL-STD. 790: NPC 200-2 NPC 200-3 NHB 5300.2

Calibratio|n intervals

purpose

Ciage St be checked periodically

insure that they have no t worn to the extent that

they accept material or

re J ec t accept' able material

6.2.5 Periodic in- spection of gages should

be carried on

in all manu- facturing

plants supplying

material to the

tJo accuracy , measuring

and testing

tools used

for inspect

ion shall

be cali- brated at

es tdbl ished intervals

.

9.2

All inspec tion

,

measuring and test

equipment shall be calibrated at scheduled interval

9.2.1 Tools which

lociitiona affectin,; quali ty charac ter- istirs -hall be checked and re- calibrated period- ically at pre- determined interva .

3.9

At interval^] established

to insure

each unit

of inspect'

equipment

shall be calibra ted

3.4.d.(3)

All standards

and equipment

will be assigned a call bra tion cycle

.

3.6 Recall for

cal ibra tion at

pr ede t ermined intervals is requi red for all standards

and equipment

to insure

toaccuracy

.

9.5 The contractor

shall periodically

inspect, maintain

and recalibrate al

.

inspec tion

,

measuring and test equipment

.

e<l dimensi required

locations

af fee ting

quali ty charac teris tics , shall be initially checked foij established to

3. 7. 5.

a

The calibration

of equipment

will be per- formed at intervals accuracy

prior to

cal ibra ted periodicalJlyment

at pre- determined

intervals

to ensure continued

accuracy

.

provide the required con- fidence level

of the equipAfter the incorporation of comments, we will

solicit Government action.

Bibliography

Dyce, F. J., Subcontractor Calibration Specification

Problems, presented at the ISA Annual Conference,

Chicago, Illinois, September 1967.

Ransom, D. R., Apollo Metrology Requirements, presented

at the ISA Annual Conference, Chicago, Illinois, September 1967. - Russell, F. C, The Accuracy Ratio Problem, presented at NCSL Conference, Gaithersburg, Maryland, May 1966. Russell, F. C, NCSL B-7 Committee Report, presented at NCSL Conference, Chicago, Illinois, September 1967. Russell, F. C, NCSL B-7 Committee Report, presented at NCSL Workshop, Anaheim, California, January 1968.

97
WORKLOAD CONTROL COMMITTEE B-1

NCSL Vice-chairman H. W. Lance

D. J. Greb

Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, Sunnyvale, California 94086

Committee Membership (1967-1968) D. I. Hervig ( Chairman )

, TREC Industries, Orlando, Florida

E. J. Arsenault, General Electric Re-Entry Systems, Philadelphia, Pa.

J. R. Myers, National Astro Laboratories, Pasadena, Calif. O. L. Rudd, Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Sunnyvale, Calif. W. F. Snyder, NBS, Boulder, Colorado

J. E. Vondracek, General Dynamics/Convair, San Diego, Calif. W. L. Bates, Navy Metrology Engineering Center, Pomona, Calif. Hugh Durkin, General Electric, Philadelphia, Pa. Committee Membership (1968-1969) D. J. Greb (Chairman), Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Sunnyvale, Calif. K. W. Hedlund, Naval Air Station, San Diego, Calif. H. C. Keith, Philco-Ford Aeronutronics, Newport Beach, Calif. T. J. Rollins, North American Rockwell Autonetics, Anaheim, Calif.

This report is essentially that of the 1967-1968

Committee, since the 1968-1969 Committee was not

fully constituted until June 1968.

In 1967, the Committee identified three major

areas of responsibility as follows

1. Calibration data collection and utilization.

2. Development of techniques to measure effi- ciency, effectiveness, and productivity of calibration laboratories and agencies.

3. Reduction of calibration laboratory costs. Subcommittees were established for each of these

responsibilities with the intent that, through specialization, the Committee could make more significant contributions. During the past year, subcommittee activities have been directed toward

gathering data, information, and techniques employed throughout the country in each of the identified areas of responsibility.

In 1967, the Committee established two objectives for the ensuing year. First, they were to pre- pare a report for presentation at the Fourth NCSL

Conference in Boulder in 1968. Second, they were

to review all the information that had been ac- cumulated with the intention of identifying

laboratory practices which have been employed

and have achieved a substantial amount of success. These practices in return would be submitted to the NCSL Conference to be considered for inclusion in the Recommended Practices for Standards

Laboratories Manual. To obtain as much information as possible in a short period of time, a series of workshops were held in September 1967 in Chicago and in January 1968 in Anaheim, California.

The results of these sessions are included as part

of this report. Mr. Vondracek reported in January that the Recall System and Recall Periods were ready for Recommended Practices.

98
ADJUSTING CALIBRATION INTERVALS

R. H. Johnson

Calibration Branch Head, Repair Division, Marine Corps Supply Center, Albany, Georgia 31704

To achieve satisfactory instrument reliability, either a fixed calibration interval must be established which is suflBciently short to insure recalibration of at least 85 percent or more of the population of a given test in- strument prior to an out-of-tolerance condition, or a means must be developed to realistically adjust the cali- bration interval for each individual instrument. This

paper describes a program for adjusting calibration in- tervals for individual test and measuring instruments

which has been in use by the Marine Corps Supply Center, Albany, Georgia, for approximately three years. The pro- gram described has increased instrument reliability sig- nificantly and has proven to be especially helpful in the

identification and evaluation of unstable and unreliable

test and measuring instruments. Introduction

The practice of utilizing fixed calibration intervals was considered quite effective for many

years. Adjustment of calibration intervals was

handled generally on an exception basis for a given family, group, or model of equipment and was effected only after the lengthy evaluation of

various data, with the eventual establishment of a new calibration cycle for universal application

within a given organization. This approach re- portedly worked well for the "average" instrument—something we have found rather difficult to identify.

In recent years, however, considerable effort, and discussion have been devoted to the subject

of adjusting calibration intervals for individ'ual

instruments. Several organizations have developed and implemented programs for calibration recall adjustment for individual test and

measuring instruments—an effort found necessary

to substantially increase instrument reliability and

simultaneously improve the effectiveness of their

calibration programs. I would like to describe the

system used at the Marine Corps Supply Center

in Albany, Georgia, which is known as the Sliding

Recall Program.

Background

_ First, it would seem appropriate to describe the

circumstances which led us to recognize the need

for adjlusting calibration intervals. After approximately two years of operation, using a fixed cali- bration interval concept, we conducted a review

of the condition upon receipt of test and measuring instruments scheduled for calibration. The

results of this review indicated that generally

about 50% of the instruments received each month

for scheduled recalibration were found out of

tolerance.

An evaluation of our overall program revealed

that several improvements were necessary; however, the wide variance in the age of the instruments supported, the percent of utilization, and

the environmental conditions to which instruments were subjected presented the biggest problem. It was felt that the fixed interval established for each

instrument type—in some cases only by association with a similar instrument in a common

family—was not effectively satisfying our require- ments. We then proceeded to develop the Sliding

Recall Program with the basic objective of re- calibrating each individual instrument when such

action was necessary to maintain in-tolerance

operation. Guidelines were established to define the

scope of the program.

First: Recall periods would range between 1 and 12 months and would be adjusted in one-month

increments.

Second: The initial calibration interval would

be the then current fixed interval. This would also

be the starting point for new instruments introduced into the inventory.

Third : The detailed criteria to be developed for

recall adjustments must consider previous calibration history and the timely receipt of instruments

scheduled.

Recall Adjustment Criteria

The criteria for adjusting calibration recall periods are based on the three functional stages

listed below. Application of these criteria is primarily determined by the date an instrument is received in relation to its calibration-due date : 16

days ahead, within ±15 days, or 16 days past.

1. Inspection Requirements

Each instrimient is thoroughly tested and in- spected to determine its operating status. Adjustment of power supply voltages, power levels,

frequency response, etc., and/or other adjustments

99
normally not made by the user are not made during

this inspection to functionally operative instruments, because such adjustments could ultimately

affect the validity of the evaluation of calibration

results in stage 2. Functionally inoperative instruments are further inspected prior to effecting

repair, to determine if the trouble results from

operator abuse, in which case the recall period is unchanged. If failure has resulted from normal

operation, the recall period is unchanged.

2. Evaluation of Calibration Results

The proportion of out-of-tolerance measure- ments recorded during a calibration which is to be

considered sufficient cause for adjustment of the

recall period was arbitrarily established at 20 percent. Plans are being established to determine if a more realistic value can be identified. No change is made in the recall period if more than 20 percent

out-of-tolerance measurements or a critical parameter or function is out at less than 16 days ahead

or less than 16 days past. The period is decreased

by one month if all critical parameters and functions and less than 20 percent of measurements are

unsatisfactory.

3. Evaluation of Calibration History

An evaluation of the instrument's calibration

history is a fairly straightforward review of available facts which have been recorded in a Kardex

file.In summary, recall periods are adjusted basically as follows

1. The recall period is decreased by one month

a. The instrument is received because of operation failure within ±15 days of its calibrationdue date, or is found functionally inoperative upon

receipt for scheduled calibration, and the failure

is not considered a direct result of incorrect application, operator abuse, or tampering ; or if

INSTRUMENT RELIABILITY

REPAIR DIVISION MCSC ALBANY. GEORGIA

O L±J Z (J < UJ

DEC APR JUL JAN 64 65 65 66

I

JUL 66

JAN 67

JUL 67jAn may

68 68

SLONG RECALL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTED I APR 65

FiGTTRE 1. The three-year improvement in instrument

reliability using the Sliding Recall Program^

h. A critical parameter (one which would

alter the accuracy of a primary function of the

instrument) is out of tolerance, and the instrument was received no later than 15 days past the

calibration due date ; or if

c. 20 percent or more of the measurements

made during a routine calibration are out of toler- ance, and the instrument was received within plus

or minus 15 days of its due date.

2. The recall period is extended one month if all of the measurements made during the calibration are found within tolerance and the instrument was received no earlier than 15 days prior to its calibration-due date and it was found in tolerance

when last calibrated.

3. The recall period is not adjusted upon the

first in-tolerance condition upon receipt for

scheduled calibration, or if less than 20 percent of

the measurements made during the calibration are found out of tolerance and no critical parameters

are involved. I have described this program on several occasions to groups of technical people. Generally,

their first question is, "How do you handle the

tremendous increase in workload created by shortening all the calibration intervals ?" We don't actually shorten that many. Less than 18 percent of the

instruments calibrated this fiscal year had calibration intervals decreased.

The second most frequently asked question is "How do you handle the scheduling problem ? Odd

calibration intervals must certainly make workload planning and scheduling problems." "We use a Kardex file system with a flag to indicate the

month calibration is due for each instrument and

prepare our calibration schedule from this record.

The workload planning problem is with us no

matter what we do. Instrument failures, 1 through

12-month calibration intervals, and other variables

have created an unpredictable workload in the

past; therefore, calibration interval adjustments

really present no new problems in that area. Progress

Figure 1 illustrates the percent of in-tolerance

instruments received each month for scheduled

recalibration. As you can see, we have progressed

somewhat since 1 April 1965 when the program

was implemented, achieving a high of 85.6% in

March 1968. Some time ago we identified nearly

80 unstable and unreliable instruments in the in- ventory that, regardless of the extent of the cor- rective action taken, would return for recalibration

at 1- or 2-month calibration interval in an out-oftolerance condition. These items represented a

sizable workload and have hindered the indicated

progress of the program in terms of overall reliability. Twenty-four of these items were recently

replaced; replacements for an additional 33 are being procured, and several others are being phased

out. In total, these actions will result in an esti100
SLIDING RECALL PROGRAM

REPAIR DIVISION MCSC ALBANY. GEORGIA

TEST INSTRUMENT QTY

RECALL PERIOD DISTRIBUTION BY MONTHS

DEPTH MICROMETERS

O.D. MICROMETERS TORQUE WRENCHES

DIAL INDICATORS D MICROMETERS

AVERAGE CALIBRATION INTERVAL I I RXED CALIBRATION INTERVAL

'—' FORMERLY USED

FiGtTRE 2. Recall period distribution for selected mechanical instruments.

mated annual saving of over 4,000 calibration

manhours.

The identification of unstable and unreliable in- struments, we feel, has been one of the most significant contributions of our program. It has

focused our attention on calibration procedure

problems, technical deficiencies in equipment, unrealistic calibration tolerances, detrimental en- vironmental conditions, and many other problem

areas which perhaps would have gone unnoticed.

Effect on Workload

Recall adjustments can have a significant effect on the overall calibration workload. In Fiscal

1967, for example, 38.6 percent of the instruments

processed required no adjustment to the calibration interval while 17.4 percent required a reduction. During that year, 44 percent of the instruments serviced by our calibration laboratory under

the Sliding Recall Program had their calibration

periods extended. This is particularly significant

since recall periods are increased only upon the

second in-tolercmce-upon-receipt condition. This

reduction in workload was accomplished while

there was an 11.8 percent increase in instrument

reliability for that period.

Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the current distribution of recall periods for several of our hig'hdensity instruments. The fixed recall period for- merly used for each instrument is included to

illustrate our deviation from that value. The dis- tribution of recall period in several of the cases

illustrated has had a sizable effect on overall workSLIDING RECALL PROGRAM

REPAIR DIVISION MCSC ALBANY. GEORGIA

TEST INSTRUMENT QTY

RECALL PERIOD DISTRIBUTION BY MONTHS

AN/URM-48 SIGNAL GENERATOR

HP 524 0 ELECTRONIC COUNTER

HP 410 C EVM

HP 200 CD WIDE RANGE OSCILLATOR

SIA 303 EVM

SIA 260 MULTIMETER

HP 525 / 526 PLUG IN UNITS

I I AVERAGE CALIBRATION INTERVAL I I FIXED CALIBRATION INTERVAL ~~ '—' FORMERLY USED

Figure 3. Recall period distribution for selected electronic instruments.

101
load. Thirty-three torque wrenches, for example,

if calibrated at the former fixed interval, represent

792 calibrations in 24 months. Current workload,

with the distribution of recall periods as illu- strated, represents 145 calibrations for the same

period.

The overall 24-month workload for the mechanical instruments listed in Figure 2, if processed at the former fixed interval, represents 1,690 calibrations. Using the individual intervals indicated in

Figure 2, the 283 instruments represent a 24-month

workload of 861 calibrations—a net savings of

825 calibrations. Along with this substantial de- crease in workload, mechanical instrument reli- ability has steadily increased and has averaged

88.7 percent for the last 12 months, 6.1 percent

above the prior 12-month period.

The overall workload for electronic instruments

listed in Figure 3 is now slightly higher, using

the adjusted intervals in comparison to the former

fixed ones. For selected items, however, there are

substantial increases and decreases as illustrated

below:

Calibrations Required

in S4 months Increase

Fixed

Interval 18032 296

138

Adjusted Deaease

Interval 246 +66

60 -1-28 248 —48

91 —47

AN/URM-48

HP 524D

HP 410C

SIA 303 Electronic instrument reliability for the past 12

months has averaged 69.14 percent—up 6 percent

from the previous 12-month period. The overall

effect of individually adjusting calibration inter- vals in terms of total workload for the 4,000+

calibrations performed this year under the Sliding

Recall Program has not been determined; however, in selected areas the reduction has been

measured.

In summary : A program for the realistic adjustment of calibration intervals such as I have

described will increase instrument reliability. It

will identify unstable and unreliable test and

measuring instruments. In all probability, it will

reduce your workload ; it has for the Marine Corps.

102
NCSL 68

SESSION 6: THE VALUE OF MEASUREMENT AGREEMENT

COMPARISON

Chairman: H. S. Ingraham, Jr.

Radio Corporation of America, Camden, New Jersey 08102 AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON OF POWER STANDARDS AT 3 GHz

Paul A. Hudson and Glenn F. Engen

National Bureau of Standards, Boulder, Colo. 80302

Preliminary reseults are presented for an international comparison of power standards

at 3 GHz for which NBS was the pilot laboratory. Other participants included Japan,

U.S.S.R., and Canada, each of which (and NBS) furnished transfer standards for use in the intercomparison. A fifth laboratory, German OflSce for Metrology and Product Testing

(DAMW-East Berlin) also participated to the extent of making measurements on transfer standards submitted by others. Measurement results obtained at each laboratory were sent to the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (Sevres, France) which sponsored the intercomparison

and will issue the final report summarizing the results.

103
SOME U.S./U.K. CALIBRATION LABORATORY MEASUREMENT

COMPARISONS

F. E. Parr, B.Sc (Eng.), M.I.E.E., M.I.Mech.E., F.I.E.R.E.

Head of Naval Calibration Service, Portsmouth, Hampshire, U.K. The paper lists the steps taken to ensure compatibility of measurement between the Polaris calibration facilities of the United States and the United Kingdom, and discusses the results of measurement audit exercises carried out between them.

Introduction

Following the 1963 Polaris Sales Agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States,

three new Calibration Centres were set up by the

Royal Navy. One Centre was at the shipyard where

the first U.K. Polaris submarine was to be built,

another at the base from which the submarines were to operate, and the third at the depot where

the missiles were to be stored and tested. Each

Centre was housed in a new building, constructed

specially for the purpose, with temperature, humidity and dust control, and provided with new

equipment of up-to-date design. Their calibration

capabilities varied slightly, but in general ex- tended over a wide range of electrical, electronic,

mechanical, optical and physical quantities.

Measurement Compatibility

Particular emphasis was laid upon the need to establish measurement compatibility between the

U.K. and the U.S. Calibration Centres. In planning to meet this requirement, it was agreed that

the two countries would

(a) Use the same calibration equipment (or its equivalent in specification and characteristics).

(b) Use the same calibration procedures.

(c) Record calibration data at identical checkpoints on each item of test equipment.

(d): Calibrate instruments at the same intervals

of time.

(e) Carry out calibration within the same en- vironments (or apply environmental corrections).

(f) Employ equally well-trained personnel operating under equally stringent management and

technical directives.

(g) Use standards 4 to 10 times more accurate than the equipment being calibrated.

Another technical requirement was that the

measurement capabilities of the new U.K. Centres

should be derived from, and traceable back to, the

national standards. Since these are held by the

National Physical Laboratory whereas the U.S.

Centres derive their capabilities from the National

Bureau of Standards, the ultimate references were

different. Technical Audits

It was deemed prudent, therefore, to verify that

measurement compatibility had been achieved by

conducting periodic technical a.udits of the U.K.

Centres. Each audit consisted of making several

measurements on a number of selected test items

and comparing the results with measurements

made on the same items in the U.S.

Now although intercomparisons of national

standards have been carried out and relationships

established at this top level, little has been done

to determine by how much and within what limits

measurements made at working level in different

countries differ from one another. Certainly very

little of such information has been published. This

paper details some of the results of the audits,

therefore, in the belief that they wnll be of interest,

a,nd discusses their significance.

Audit Arrangements

Responsibility for the technical oversight of the

audits was delegated to the U.S. Navy Metrology

Engineering Centre (M.E.C.), Pomona, California and to the U.K.'s Naval Calibration Service

(N.C.S.), Portsmouth, Hampshire. These two authorities collaborated in planning and overseeing

the exercises and in analysing and assessing the

results. On the basis that each audit was required to

assess the whole range of any Centre's capability,

the following measurement areas were selected for investigation—conductance, voltage (d.c. and

a.c), phase angle (electrical), attenuation, length,

flatness, angular displacement, temperature, pres- sure and torque.

The choice of test items presented problems.

Ideally they should all have been highly stable

104
and very robust so that they could stand up to the

rigours of being transported between the U.S.

and the U.K. without any detectable change of

values. In practice, it was necessary to compromise

to some extent. The items ultimately used, though

not always to the highest quality possible of at- tainment, were nevertheless selected as being

significantly better than the "tolerance" of the

measurements to be made on them. Factors which

had to be taken into account were size and weight,

as well as such down-to-earth matters as cost and

availability for the period of the audit. In other

words, the policy was to use the best items readily

available, always provided that they were good

enough for the job, rather than to develop or to purchase ideal ones. M.E.C. provided the test items so that they

could be measured first in the U.S., prior to dis- patch to the U.K. Remeasurements were carried out in the U.S. after the audit so that any changes

could be detected. In general, both these measure- ments were carried out to a higher order of ac- curacy than in the U.K. so that it would be fair to use them as a datum against which the U.K.

results could be critically examined.

Instructions were provided describing the measurements to be made on each test item. These were

not step-by-step instructions and no formal standardisation of procedures or techniques was at- tempted, each Calibration Centre being left to use its own normal methods. What the instructions

did clearly state were the nature of each measure- ment to be made, the number of times a measure- ment was to be taken, the number of significant

figures to which instruments were to be read, etc. An abstract from the general instructions for the

audits reads as follows

"Each standard is to be measured as per the

specific instructions given at the end of this dis- cussion. Each series of measurements is to be con- ducted three times unless otherwise stated. The mean value for the U.K. measurements should be

the mean of nine values. (Three each day for three

days) . As many technicians as possible should be

involved in the making of these measurements.

Each technician should make independent meas- urements from the other technicians in his area

of performance. If, for example, three technicians

are available to perform the voltage measurements, each one should make one set of measure- ments on each of the three testing days without

knowledge of the results of the other two technicians' work."

The specific instructions for one of the test items, a voltage standard, were as follows:

"Voltage measurements for this test should be

made utilizing a typical calibration laboratory

level voltage measurement system. The K-3 potentiometric system should be used during this

audit. Upon completion of the audit measurements, a more sophisticated voltage measurement

system may be employed for verification of results,

if desired. The K-3 data are not to be altered by

other tests, unless jointly agreed upon by the

M.E.C. and N.C.S. representatives.

"Turn the instrument on and allow it to warm

up until the output stabilizes (rate of change less than 20 microvolts per hour at 1000 volt level).

Measure the output at settings of 1, 5, and 10 volts. L#eave instrument on and repeat readings on the

hour until 3 complete tests have been run and then

turn the instrument off. Record measurements to the nearest 10 ppm."

It will be noted that measurements were to be

made on three or more consecutive days and that

a number of technicians were required to take part

in measuring each test item. The aim was to make

the results approximate, as far as possible, to the

work-load output of the Centre, by including the

variability due to different day-to-day conditions

and different operators (and incidentally minimising the risk of one technician invalidating all the results in a particular measurement area by

making a gross error)

.

Data Analysis Plan

The analysis was designed to provide answers

with the minimum of data processing. Each U.K.

set of measurement was plotted against the initial U.S. values using the "Youden plot" method. This

method requires the values of two nominally equal

test items for each plot point, consequently two

nominally equal test items were used throughout

the audit. The plot-point is the intersection of the

values of the difference between the U.S. value

and the U.K. value for each item with the intersection of the U.S. values for the two test items

forming the centre point (0,0) or origin of the

graph. The units of the graph were chosen to con- form with the units of measurement established

for control, i.e. volt, Ib-in., degree, arc second, etc. Using this method, systematic errors between

U.S. and U.K. measurements appear as displacements along a 45° line through the centre of the

graph, extending into the first or third quadrants.

First quadrant points indicate that U.K. readings

are higher than U.S. readings whereas third quadrant points indicate U.K. readings which are lower than U.S. readings. Displacement away

from the 45° line indicates some lack of precision.

Control limits are represented by a hexagon.

The primary points of the hexagon lie along the

45° line from the centre of the graph at the intersection of the allowable systematic error for each

test item of the pair. Two lines parallel to the 45°

line are then drawn so that they intersect the axis

at a distance from the centre equal to the assessed

permissible variability. The intersection of these

lines with the control limits for systematic error for

each test piece generate the other four points of

the hexagon. While an ellipse with its major axis

along the 45° line through the centre would be

mathematically more correct, the hexagon shape

105
Table 1.

Test items and measurement plan

Measure- ment Test Item Description Nominal MeasurementControl Limits

Systematic Variability

Conductance. Conductance Box. Fixed wire resistors with 10 mhos 5X10-* ohms 2.5X10-< ohms

high quality switch. 10~* mhos 0.7 ohms 0.35 ohms

10~^ mhos 2X10« ohms 1X10' ohms

d.c. Voltage. Voltage Standard. Solid state voltage refer- 1 volt 50 mV 25 mV

ence (low current). 5 volt 500 mV 250 mV

10 volt 1 mV 500 mV

d.c. Voltage. Millivoltmeter. Permanent magnet 25 mV 250 fiV 125 mV

moving coil, taut band 30 mV 250 fiV 125 fiV type. 50 mV 250 mV 125 mV

60 mV 500 mV 250 mV

100 mV 500 fiV 250 mV

a.c. Voltage. a.c. /d.c. Con- Precision a.c. voltage 1 volt, 1 kHz 100 iiV 50 mV

verter. divider, fixed stable 10 volt, 1 kHz 100 mV 50 ^V

amplifier and rectifier. 100 volt, 1 kHz 100 nV 50 fiY 10 volt, 50 Hz 200 nV 100 mV

10 volt, 10 kHz 200 mV 100 mV t f\ 1 J- o r\ 1 TT 10 volt, 20 kHz 200 mV 100 mV

a.c. Voltage. Electronic Volt- Transistorised voltmeter. 0.94 volt, 1 kHz 10 mV 5 mV

meter. a.c. responding, r.m.s. 0.94 volt, 1 MHz 10 mV 5 mV

indicating, taut band 0.94 volt, 2 MHz 10 mV 5 mV

type.

a.c. Voltage. Amplifier. Dual channel plug-in 400: 1 (ratio), 1 kHz 4 2

pre-amplifier for 10:1 (ratio), 1 kHz 0.1 0.05

oscilloscopes. 2:1 (ratio), 1 kHz 0.02 0.01

Phase Angle. Phase Shifter. Resolver with precise 10°, 500 Hz 0.6° 0.3°

dial and associated 30°, 500 Hz 0.6° 0.3°

circuitry. 180°, 500 Hz 0.6° 0.3°

Attenuation. Attenuator. Fixed co-axial resistive 30 dB, 400 MHz 0.3 dB 0.05 dB

film. 30 dB, 800 MHz 0.3 dB 0.05 dB

30 dB, 1000 MHz 0.3 dB 0.05 dB

Length. End Standard. 1 inch rod with hemi- 8 in. 150 fiin. 100 Min. spherical ends.

Length. Verneir Height Steel rule on mounting 1 in. 0.003 in. 0.001 in. Gauge. base. 1.5 in. 0.003 in. 0.001 in. 1.75 in. 0.003 in. 0.001 in. 2 in. 0.003 in. 0.001 in. 8 in. 0.003 in. 0.001 in. 12 in. 0.003 in. 0.001 in.

Flatness. Adjustable Ref- 3.5 in. pyrex mirror with <10 /iin. 6 ixin. 4 /Liin. erence Mirror. 54 fringe flatness. Angular Dis- Three-angle 3 wrung mirrors, each 100 arc sec. 1 arc sec. 0.5 arc sec. placement. Mirror. with 2.5 in. x 0.5 in. faces, fused quartz.

Angular Pentaprism. Crown glass (4 in. x 4 90° 1.5 arc sec. 0.5 arc sec. Displace- in. X 2.5 in.) with ment. 1.75 in. X 1.875 in. aperture.

Temperature. Thermometer. Total immersion liquid- 120° F 0.1° F 0.05° F

in-glass mercury 135° F 0.1° F 0.05° F

ASTM type. 150° F 0.1° F 0.05° F

165° F 0.1° F 0.05° F

Temperature. Thermometer. As above. 400° F 0.5° F 0.25° F

425° F 0.5° F 0.25° F

460° F 0.5° F 0.25° F

500° F 0.5° F 0.25° F

Temperature. Thermocouple. Copper Constantan. 100° F 0.75° F 0.38° F

200° F 0.75° F 0.38° F

300° F 1.0° F 0.5° F

400° F 1.0° F 0.5° F

500° F 1.0° F 0.5° F

106
Table 1.

Test items and measurement plan

Measure- ment Test Item Description Nominal Measurement

Control Limits

Systematic Variability

Pressure. Pressure Actuator. Indicating Switch. 8 psi 16 psi 24 psi

0.9 psi 0.45 psi 0.45 psi0.9 psi 0.45 psi 0.45 psi

Pressure. Pressure Gauge.

pensated type. 4000 psi

6000 psi

8000 psi

10 psi (up) 10 psi (up) 10 psi (up) 10 psi (up)10 psi (up) 10 psi (up) 10 psi (up) 10 psi (up)

Torque. Torque Wrench. Flexible beam indicator. 900 Ib-in. 20 Ib-in. 10 Ib-in.

was accepted because of its simplicity of construction. The U.S. remeasurements have, in general, been

plotted on the same graphs and in a similar manner to the U.K. measurements. In a few instances,

however, the graph origins have been adjusted

to a "best" value somewhere between the original

and the remeasured value. The graphs clearly in- dicate where such an adjustment has been made.

Control Limits

The setting of the control limits involved a detailed appraisal of the equipment to be used and

the conditions under which measurements were to be made. Each set of measurements on each pair of

test items was given separate consideration.

The systematic error control limit took account

of such things as possible calibration errors in the

equipment utilised in the measurement systems.

Where several instruments were used, the r.m.s. value of the several estimated maximum errors was

computed and adopted as the limit. The variability control limits took account of the

short-term stability of both the test items and the

equipment used in the measurement systems, possible reading errors, etc., and again the limit was

computed as the r.m.s. value of the individual max- imum errors of this type which might affect a particular set of measurements.

In general, the control limits were a practical

compromise between, on the one hand, the desire

to determine just how close an agreement could be

obtained on measurements and, on the other hand,

the recognition that agreement within certain

limits was all that was needful for the U.K.

Calibration Centres to perform their allotted roles. Table 1 lists and describes a typical set of audit

test items (as used for the very first audit exercise), indicates the specific values at which meas- urements were to be taken, and states the applicable

control limits. First Audit

The first technical audit was conducted at the

Shipyard Calibration Centre in September 1965

and Youden plots of some of the results are shown

in figures 1-8 (space considerations preclude re- production of more than a small amount of the

total data). Each figure is identified as to the test items concerned, control limits, significance of plot

points, etc. In most measurement areas—Conductance (see

fig. 1) ; Voltage a.c. and d.c. (see fig. 2) ; Phase

angle, electrical; Flatness; Temperature; and

Pressure (see fig. 7) —compatibility was satisfactorily demonstrated to the required accuracy.

Results generally showed little scatter as, for

example in figures 1, 2, and 7, or acceptable

scatter, with only one or two points falling outside

the control limit envelope. One exception was the

Thermocouples (see fig. 6) used in the temperature assessment, which showed high day-to-day

variations but with very little daily scatter. This

suggested that systematic errors were introduced

llBfiArioN CENTRE ^

CdHDUCTANCE 10fc|OMM0 Ic —|—-

!

1

+ 21::.:: + 1- ::::;:::: ::: . 0 |jjj||[T| ijtaajr

xKrHIIIIIIIIII^S

•:l:,,, , :

":-.;.:.

j .

5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0+1 +2 ^ 3+4+5 xlO"'*M

-H-H- HO

332-i932 O—69 8 107
-3 -2 -I 0 +1 ' + 2 + 3 dB

during the setting up of the equipment (standard

temperature versus test couple temperature) or during the processing of the data.

Where the U.K. measurements were consistent

but offset from the initial U.S. values, remeasure- ments in the U.S. almost always showed a similar

trend, as in figure 1, and indeed the U.K. values

fell neatly between the two U.S. values on occasion,

as in figure 2.

+3r

+2- +ii

0 =

-l£

-2|

-3 7

PpMTAiPRISM; mz,mmz

5??::; ;;:j;-T"7;;j;:;'

:;t:-:: :::[::::

-4-5r

-6t

-7- -81

HOSECS

CE

AIR

:rr1-;:::l:::-t:;:r|::::.:---

-5 -4 -3

'.ZZ Z\Z

-2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3+4 +5 SECOND OF ARC

This first audit was adjudged to have failed

to demonstrate measurement compatibility on

Attenuation, Length, Angular Displacement, and

Torque.

As regards Attenuation, the scatter of results was excessive (see fig. 3). This was due to the

inexperience of the technicians with the calibration equipment concerned, which was received

only just in time for the audit arid which was

108
- 75 -60 -30 0 +-30 t-60 +75 Op

-45 -30 -15 0 +-I5 +30 +-45 PSIG

obviously unfamiliar to them. In fact, the results obtained on the third day of the audit were much

better than on the first day and the plots clearly

showed on-the-job learning.

The poor results on Length comparisons were

attributable to the test items. The end standards

had hemispherical ends, as had the U.K. measuring equipment, and accurate measurements under

-20 -10 0 +10 +20 LB-IN

such conditions were virtually impossible. The

plot (fig. 4) had a lot of scatter with very few

points within the control limits. A pair of vernier

height gauges which were also used as test items were found to be unstable.

Angular displacement results were varied, being

good on three-angle mirrors but unacceptable on

pentaprisms (see fig. 5). Observing how closely

109
the distant pentaprism points were grouped to- gether, it would appear that they were misplaced

because of an error in procedure or calculation.

Considering Torque, the test items were very

susceptible to the method of loading employed. The

U.K. equipment did not provide a means of loading the wrenches mechanically and the excessive

scatter of the results (see fig. 8) was largely due

to this lack.

Partial Re-Audit

Because the results of the first audit exercise were inconclusive with respect to Attenuation,

Length and Torque and unsatisfactory on the

pentaprism (Angular Displacement), a second

audit exercise was carried out at the Shipyard

Calibration Centre some six months later, in these

measurement areas only.

The results on the Attenuation test items (fig.

9) were excellent with very little scatter and a

clear indication that the systematic error, if any, was very small indeed. The interesting point was

that these good results were obtained using exactly

the same test items as for the original audit.

Clearly, in the intervening period the teclinicians

had familiarised themselves with the particular

measuring equipment involved.

The Length measurement comparison was also excellent and variability control was so good that

the points had to be plotted on an expanded scale graph on which the control limits could not be

seen (fig. 10).

On the Angle gauge block, compatibility of

measurement was good (fig. 11) and, although

there was appreciable scatter, only one point fell outside the control limits set. It is of interest that

the U.S. used an automatic measuring system with

a known error of less than 0.3 arc second and re- peatability of the order of 0.1 arc second.

The results obtained with the Torque test items were very good (fig. 12). There was very little scatter and the U.S. remeasurements indicated that

the results were all that could be expected.

The outcome, therefore, was the establishment of

compatibility between the U.S. and the U.K. Shipyard Calibration Centre over the whole range of

measurements which the Centre was equipped to perform.

Second Audit

A year later the Missile Depot Calibration Centre was completed and it was, therefore, subjected

to an audit exercise in March, 1967. This Centre's measurement capability was less than that of the

Shipyard Centre but nevertheless ranged over Conductance, Current, Voltage, a.c. and d.c. Phase

Angle (electrical). Attenuation, Frequency,

Torque, Temperature and Pressure. Measurement compatibility was successfully

demonstrated in most of these areas. The results of one set of measurements on a pair of electronic

voltmeters are shown in figure 13. Note that both

the points which fall outside the control limits are the work of one particular technician. The

Youden plot is first-class for showing up the in- experience of any operator in this way.

Measurement compatibility was not proved as regards Torque, Temperature and Pressure. The

110
+0 05

+0(25

-0-125

+(101-

+01)05-

-0^)05~

V3LT-

-001 -0005 0 +0005 +001 VOLT

L/G I rttKnUnt I tn

MISSILE DEPbT- 0C!ri967

o U.5. REMEASURtMtHr

FIG. 15

-02 -01 0 +01 +02 "C

Depot had no proper Torque calibration equipment, only comparators which themselves required

fairly frequent attention, and it was obviously

necessary to remedy this deficiency. The scatter of the results on Temperature was very poor (see

fig. 14), due to the bath having been received only

just prior to the audit so that the technicians had

not had sufficient experience at operating it. The

Pressure audit items (load cells) required absolute pressure measurements to be made and as the

Centre was not equipped to do this, no audit was

possible in the Pressure area.

Ill
Partial Re-Audit

Here again, then, it was necessary to conduct a

partial re-audit of the Missile Depot Calibration

Centre some six months later in respect of Torque,

Temperature and Pressure. This time, compatibility of measurement was successfully demonstrated in all three areas. Figure 15, for example,

shows the excellent results achieved on a pair of

liquid-in-glass thermometers. It is interesting to compare these results with those obtained at the same temperature and on similar test items during

the initial audit of the Centre (see fig. 14).

Third Audit

When the Submarine Base Calibration Centre was completed and ready to become operational,

yet another audit exercise was mounted, in October 1967. The test items used for this audit were

also routed via the Shipyard Calibration Centre,

just to check that all was well. At the same time, some additional more accurate measurements were attempted by the Shipyard

Calibration Centre in order that it could prove its capability to undertake certain higher grade work.

The results were quite satisfactory. Figure 16 is the

plot of measurements taken on a pair of current shunts ; these, were obtained using equipment and

techniques unfamiliar in practice to the technicians

concerned. At first sight the Centre's results on a pair of Voltage Standards (see fig. 18) were sus- pect because of an apparent systematic error of some 10 microvolts but virtually the same error was indicated by the Submarine Base Calibration

Centre (fig. 20) and substantiated by the Ministry

-I -0-5 0 +0-5 +1 MICRO OHMS

-50 -25 0 +25 +50 MICROVOLTS

of Defence's prime standards laboratory, the Services Electrical Standards Centre at Bromley, Kent

(fig. 19). In fact this apparent systematic error

arises mainly from the difference between the banks

of standard reference cells maintained by the

N.P.L. in the U.K. and N.B.S. in the U.S., a differ- ence which is well established.

The Submarine Base Calibration Centre demonstrated measurement compatibility over the full

112
-so -25 0 +25 +50 MICflOVOLTS

range of measurement areas. This achievement un- doubtedly reflected the experience gained in organising and carrying out audits. The Shipyard Calibration Centre also successfully demonstrated

measurement compatibility again, and the Youden

plot (see fig. 17) for Torque, an area in which it is difficult to find stable, robust test items, underlines

the improvement resulting from two years of

operation.

Comment

The U.S./U.K. audit exercises were highly suc- cessful since measurement compatibility between

the Naval Calibration facilities of two countries was established at the required accuracy level in all the measurement area selected for intercomparison.

No significant systematic errors were detected

apart from the known voltage difference. If any

systematic errors exist, they are too small to need

taking into account at the working level concerned.

The Youden plots were a relatively simple and

yet a very sensitive means of displaying results and

ruthlessly exposing any inexperience on the part of

the technicians making the measurements, as well

as any instability in the test items. The control limits must be set with great care, however, if full value is to be obtained from this method of presentation. Nevertheless, the method is a first-class means of appraising the results of measurement

audits of the type described, and the workers in this

field are much indebted to Dr. W. J. Youden, late of N.B.S.,forit.

That the U.K. benefited the most from this programme is without question. But even the U.S.

gained considerable experience which was of

value—not least through the problems that made

re-audits necessary on two occasions. Thus, for

example, U.S. Navy methods of torque-tool loading were changed, improved test items for length

and torque measurement were selected, and control limits were more validly established. The benefit of this knowledge is now being reflected in the

U.S. Navy's internal audits.

Acknowledgments

The author thanks the Chief Polaris Executive,

Ministry of Defence (Navy Department) for per- mission to publish this paper. Also the many technical personnel in both countries who made the

measurements, processed the data and analyzed the

results ; in particular Mr. J. L. Hayes of the U.S.

Navy's Metrology Engineering Center under

whose direction the intercomparison programme

was developed and whose personal comment has

been much appreciated in the preparation of this

paper.

113
THE NCSL INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON OF 1965

H. L. Mason

OflSce of Measurement Services, Institute for Basic Standards, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 From the data reported in the NCSL round-robin of 1965-66, Youden diagrams have

been plotted for 20 types of standards which were circulated among 5 to 19 participating

laboratories. The patterns generally show strong evidence of systematic errors in the measurements reported. Suggestions are offered for interpretation of the diagrams and

improvement of future round-robins.

A measurement agreement comparison among 62

laboratories was planned in 1965 by a committee of

NCSL headed by S. C. Richardson. The participants included 46 industrial and commercial laboratories, 3 military laboratories, and 11 NBS

laboratories at Washington or Boulder. According

to the 1967 edition of the NCSL Directory, most of

them offer to service primary standards for one or more physical quantities. In number of personnel

they ranged from 2 engineers and 5 technicians

to 20 engineers and 140 technicians. The physical

quantities measured included length, diameter,

angle, mass, temperature, resistance, voltage,

capacitance, attenuation, Q, microwave frequency,

and microwave power. Several pairs of nearly

identical instruments for the measurements of

these quantities were grouped in packages designated as Physical, LF Electrical, and HF Electrical. Each pair of instruments was calibrated at

specified test points by NBS, sent out on a circuit

(some through 5 laboratories and some through as many as 22) and then returned to NBS for another

reference calibration, either once or twice during

the circuit. No calibration procedures were specified, since the Committee believed it desirable to sample the usual practice of each laboratory.

A report of the result of each such measurement was forwarded to a single individual at NBS, who

kept a confidential record of the code numbers

identifying the individual participants. The accu- mulated results with the coded designations were

then sent to one of four NCSL members acting as route supervisors, who analyzed the data and pre- pared the published tables and graphs [Proceedings, 1966].

The present paper reviews briefly the method of

constructing a Youden diagram [Youden, 1959]

and explains how the resulting plot can under cer- tain circumstances provide a reasonable indication

as to whether the extreme values shown result from random error or from systematic error. This

leads to some suggestions as to how the next NCSL

measurement agreement comparison, now in the

planning stages, can be made to yield more meaningful results. Let us examine, as a typical useful example, the

Youden diagram shown as figure 1, for a pair of

nearly identical coaxial attenuators of reference

standard quality, rated at 50 dB. Here and in the

other examples shown, the data come from the

1965-66 measurement agreement comparison.

However, the diagrams published in the NCSL

1966 Proceedings used the NBS average value as the zero datum from which measurement deviations of other laboratories were plotted, but the

diagrams here use medians of all values as the

zero datum, and attach no special distinction to the NBS points. The 18 sets of measurements re- ported for these 50dB attenuators are tabulated

in Appendix B. The median value is 49.83dB for

unit I and 50.12dB for unit II. Horizontal and

vertical axes have been drawn at these values, as shown by the respective scales, which have uniform and equal intervals. Experience with many

such diagrams leads us to expect that points rep- resenting measurements by a number of laboratories on that same pair of standard instruments

will fall into an oval cluster stretched out along

a 45° line dra^vn through the first and third quadrants. This pattern helps us to understand the

nature of deviations from the median of the

(group. If every primary standards laboratory

had identically-valued reference standards, used

exactly the same measurement procedure, and had

equally expert personnel exercising equal care, then every point for the group might be expected

to fall closely around the median. However, these

conditions are never fulfilled in practice, and er- rors of both random and systematic types may be

expected to show up in the results. The Youden

diagram enables us to see at a glance which type

of error is the dominant one for this single pair of

measurements, and which laboratories differ from

the consensus of the group.

If errors were purely systematic, each of the

two measurements of a pair made by any one

114
laborator}^ Avould be biased in the same way. Thus

all deviations from the median point would be

either positive by about the same amount, or negative by about the same amount, so that points

would lie closely along the 45° line. If errors were the result of imprecision^ the measurements

of such a sample of two would show up as points

falling away from this line, since the randomness is not likely to affect units I and II in the same amount.

Statistical theory (see Appendix B) provides

a method for determining a circular region in

which practically all the points may be expected

to fall, if the measurements reported were influ- enced by random errors only^ and not at all by

systematic errors. For the 50-dB pair of figure 1, this "circle of reasonable randomness" includes

only 7 laboratories; that is, only 7 of these lab- oratories can be regarded as being reasonably free

from systematic errors. They do show some ran- dom errors (see fig. 1 and Appendix B) on the

order of ±0.05 dB. For the entire 18, however,

the systematic error indicated is ten times that,

since the highest and lowest values shown are half

a decibel apart, or about 1 percent of the nominal

value. Perhaps this is adequate uniformity for the

national measurement system of USA, but there

is no doubt that it could be improved. Of course, the diagram tells us nothing whatever about ac- curacy. It only shows a lack of consensus among

certain NCSL laboratories.

On the other hand, figure 1 is strong evidence

that the lack of consensus is the result of systematic error on the part of some of the laboratories

reporting. The 11 laboratories outside the ran- domness circle should examine their operation for

systematic errors which might be affecting both

measurements of the pair. One suspects an in- adequate calibration procedure, a missing correc- tion for temperature or humidity, an inexperienced technician, or a reference standard which

is overdue for recalibration. To see whether these

11 show unreasonably large random errors, lines

may be drawn tangent to the randomness circle and parallel to the 45° line. Within this band, precision may be considered adequate for the twovalue sample. In figure 1, the one laboratory outside this band should examine its operation for

random errors affecting only one of the two meas- urements of the pair—say a slammed door, an

overnight cooling off, a power failure, a telegram

with bad news, or what not. Figure 1 is a useful example, in that most of the

plotted points cluster around the 45° line as predicted. Let us now look at another example, the

plot for the 1-gram standard pair, shown in figure

2. Here the 15 points do not form a cluster, nor do they follow the 45° line through the median.

Instead, they appear to scatter vertically ! How

shall we interpret this ? One possible explanation is that the basic as- sumption for Youden's two-sample test has been

violated in this case. Note this quotation [ Youden

1960] : "Once it is accepted that differences in precision between laboratories can be forgotten . . . the way is open for a revealing examination of

the data."

In the data which yielded figure 2, can we forget differences in precision between laboratories?

An examination of table 2 [Proceedings, 1966, p. 57] of the "estimated accuracies" reported by the

participants shows that we cannot. Of the 15 laboratories, NBS estimated an uncertainty of 0.004

milligrams, 6 others estimated their uncertainty

to be about 0.01 to 0.03 mg, 3 others estimated it to be between 0.1 to 0.2 mg, and 3 others estimated

it as 10 mg or larger. The total range is more than

3000 : 1, so the assumption of small differences of

precision is hardly justified. For this reason figure

2 defies any meaningful interpretation.

For the 50dB coax attenuators of figure 1, the

estimated uncertainty ranges only between 0.1 and

0.3 dB, and the resulting plot apparently makes

sense. In fact, it is this assumption regarding small

differences of precision among laboratories that

allows us to combine the readings and compute a standard deviation as in Appendix B.

As an example of a nearly circular Youden diagram, consider figure 3 for the 10-dB coax atten- uators. Here the randomness circle is extremely

large, and we may deduce that for this case the

random errors are larger than the systematic

errors. Improvement may be effected, perhaps,

through more precise specification of the calibration method or apparatus, which should reduce

the magnitude of random errors. The resulting plot

might then turn out to be clustered in a narrower band along the 45° line. Some points might still lie at its upper and lower ends, indicating the

necessity of examining ways to reduce the sys- tematic errors. In practice, the need for prcision

and accuracy in the calibration service will dictate

at what stage we may be satisfied with this cycling

process. Figures 4 through 24 are additional Youden

diagrams similarly computed from the NCSL data

of 1965-66. Several are plotted for deviations from

the median rather than for absolute values, but the

interpretation remains the same. There are interesting differences between results for devices which

are much alike ; the cause is not evident. However,

any laboratory which sent a report to the NCSL

route supervisors can identify itself by noting the

{x, y) reading of its reported point as read from

the scales marked on these plots, and can determine its position relative to the other participants.

In anticipating the next measurement agreement

comparison planned by NCSL, I offer these

recommendations

(1) Any laboratory lying outside a circle of

reasonable randomness in 1965 should make a seri- ous examination of its reference standards, its cali115
brating equipment, and its calibration techniques,

before participating.

(2) A thorouglily documented, calibration procedure, generally approved by the participants,

should be adopted and followed carefully.

(3) The reported results should be analyzed as separate groups, each including only those laboratories which claim a similar level of estimated

uncertainty.

Finally, let me point out that such a snapshot

view of performance, even that shown by the 7

laboratories within the randomness circle of figure

1, is no guarantee of continuing excellence. This

snapshot is based on a single set of conditions, with

unknown parameters affecting personnel, equipment, and environment. It involves a single pair

of standard devices of only one type, a single pair

of measurements, and a norm based on a limited

number of laboratories. The standards laboratory

which hopes to do good work must make frequent

repetitive measurements on its secondary standards, to compare them with the primary standards

which determine their accuracy. Continuous rec- ords of readings on devices received for calibration will help to establish that the measurement

process is in statistical control [Pontius and Cameron, 1967]. The Bureau stands ready to help with

reference standards [Mason, 1968a], with computer programs [Hilsenrath et al, 1968], and with

effective calibration procedures [Mason, 1968b].

Acknowledgments are due J. M. Cameron and

his statistical engineering staff for helpful disciis- sions and technical assistance.

Appendix A

To supplement the results of the 1965-66 Measurement values and estimated accuracies for items in the Physical

Agreement Comparison, the committee reports the follow- Package, and may be entered at the bottom of the

ing end-of-route data, for measurements delayed by the McCallum tables, Proceedings 1966, pages 57, 58, and 59. NBS move to Gaithersburg. They are the NBS recorded

Table 1: 4-98. 07 0. 7 -f- 14. 65 0. 7 -1-39. 57 0. 03 4-14. 55 4-0. 03 4-19. 41 0. 03 4-13. 59 0. 03

Table 2: + 0. 0235 0. 004 -0. 0474 0. 004 -0. 0258 0. 003 -0. 742 0. 010

Table 4:

-t-3.0 2. 0 -1-3. 0 2. 0 + 1. 0 3. 0 4-2. 0 3. 0 4-1. 0 2. 0 -f 1. 0 2. 0

Table 6:

1. 850193 10 1. 850182 10 -1. 3 1. 0 -j-0. 6 1. 0 Table 6: 1604 7 1905 6 2209 7 2208 7 2610 8 3017 10

Columns 2 and 3 of table 1 show the measurement

values reported by the participating laboratories on the

pair of 50dB coaxial attenuators. These were plotted by

an OMNITAB computer routine, from which figure 1 was traced. In Column 4, d is the unit II reading minus

the unit I reading. The difference from laboratory 16E

was not included, being apparently out of line with the

rest. The standard deviation of the group of 18 differences was found to be Sd = 0. 02348. The estimated standard

deviation of any individual measurement among the 36

in columns 2 and 3 is then a- = Sd/V2 = 0.0166. Assuming

a circular Gaussian distribution with 99 percent coverage, the circle of reasonable randomness has a radius of 3.035

cr or 0.0504dB, centered on the median intersection (50.12, 49.83). If points fall outside this circle, it is strong evidence

that those points reflect systematic errors.

ix B

TABLE 1

Laboratory Unit I Unit II DIFF. d NBS Dec. 1 49. 87 50. 15 .28

NBS Apr. 2 49. 86 50. 15 .29

NBS June 3 49. 87 50. 15 .28

17 E 49. 83 50. 10 .27

18 F 49. 82 50. 12 . 30

20 E 49. 80 50. 06 . 26

22 F 50. 07 50. 37 .30

32 F 50. 04 50. 32 .28

34 F 49. 58 49. 86 . 28 37 F 49. 90 50. 23 .83

43 G 49. 94 50. 23 .29

45 A 49. 80 50. 09 . 29

48 G 49. 73 50. 02 .29

51 E 49. 59 49. 95 . 36

56 F 49. 81 50. 12 . 31 57 G 49. 76 50. 07 .31

58 E 49. 91 50. 20 . 29

16 E 49. 75 49. 91 . 16

116
Bibliography

Hilsenrath, J., G. G. Ziegler, 0. G. Messina, P. J. Walsh,

and R. J. Herbold, OMNITAB, A computer program for

statistical and numerical analysis, NBS Handbook 101,

ed. 2, 1968. Mason, H. L., editor. Calibration and Test Services of tbe National Bureau of Standards, NBS Spec. Pub. 250, May 1968; see Measurement Users Bulletins for changes.

Mason, H. L., editor, Precision Measurement and Calibration—A compilation of previously published papers by

the staff of the National Bureau of Standards, 12 vol- umes in press 1968-1969, NBS Spec. Publ. 300. Pontius, P. E., and J. M. Cameron, Realistic uncertainties and the mass measurement process—an illustrated re- view, NBS Monograph 103, Aug. 15, 1968. Proceedings of the 1966 Standards Laboratory Conference,

NBS Misc. Pub. 291, July 13, 1967. Youden, W. J., Graphical diagnosis of interlaboratory

test results, Indus. Qual. Control, Vol. XV, No. 11, pp. 1-5, May 1959. Youden, W. J., The sample, the procedure, and the laboratory. Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 33, No. 13, December,

1960.

NCSL 1965'

10 dB COAX ATTENUATORS

A^MGN-HLM 7-18-68

10.10 10.20 10.30 ,

UNITn

10.40

Figure 8. A Youden diagram indicatmg large ran- dom errors: lOdB coaxial attenuators. The plot is nearly circular.

240 245 250 255 260

Figure 2. A diagram indicating violation of You- Q-STD I coL/R

den's basic assumption: 1-gram weights.

Points scatter vertically. FiGUEE 5. Youden diagram for Q-standards.

117
40 MARK S

20

0

-

-20

NCSL 1965

2 kg WEIGHTS

MGN-HLM 7-17-68

(32.4,-44.8) i 20 40 60 80 MARK L DEVIATIONS, mg

100

Figure 6. A Youden diagram suggesting human

error: 2-kg weights.

4

B687

2

/

yX

/ y

/ \ /

/ \^

• /

/

/ /(8,7)

/A / / \ / K.2 ] /

1/

/ /

/

/ / //

/ /

/

/ Z 4 6 / B682

/ /

/

—/ / NCSL 1965 0.650 INCH GAGE BLOCKS / DEVIATIONS, ^in

MGN-HLM 7-17-68

Figure 9. A Youden diagram indicating 6 points

within the randomness circle: 0.650-inch gage

Mocks.

NCSL 1965 200g WEIGHTS

MARK S

38 39 40 MARK L DEVIATIONS, mg

41

Figure 7. A Youden diagram suggesting human

error: 200-g weights.

BI049

NCSL 1965

3- INCH GAGE BLOCKS

DEVIATIONS , ^in

MGN-HLM 7-17-68

Figure 10. A Youden diagram indicating 9 points

within the randomness circle: 3-inch gage blocks.

14.40

14.20

14.00 MARK S

13.80

13.60 -

13.40 -

18.50

NCSL 1965

100 g WEIGHTS

MGN-HLM 7-12-68 RAI3

18.90 19.30 19.70 MARK L DEVIATIONS, mg

2-INCH GAGE BLOCKS

DEVIATIONS, ^in

MGN-HLM 7-31-68 Figure 8. Youden diagram for 100-g weights. Figure 11. Youden diagram for 2-inch gage Mocks.

118
1.850190" -

1.850180" -

SMC- 25705

1.850170" -

1.850160" -

1.8

Figure 12. Youden diagram for ring gages. Figure 15. Youden diagram for 10.5 and 9.6 kilo- ohm, resistors. Eastern route.

10000.10 -

#1666856

lOOOOOO -

9999.90 -

9999.80 _

Figure 13. Youden diagram for 10 kilo-ohm resis- fig. 16. A Youden diagram suggesting human

tors, Eastern route. error: 10.5 and 9.6 kilo-ohm. resistors, Western route.

119
1000.02

1000.01

567

1000.00

999.99

999.98

NCSL 1965 lOOOpF CAPACITORS EASTERN ROUTE

MGN-HLM 7-25-

999.96

/

(1000.04, IOOOjOS)

999.98 1000.00 #138

Fig. 19. You6ien Aiagram -for 1000-picofarad

capacitors, Eastern route.

1000.02

1000.01

130

1000.00

999.99 -

NCSL 1965 lOOOpF CAPACITORS WESTERN ROUTE

M6N-HLM 7-25-68 /

(999.93,99197)

, (999.85,999.90) 1^ \ L _1_ _L

999.94 #563 999.96 99998

Fig. 20. A Youden diagram with 2 points indicating

unusually large systematic error: 1000-picofarad

capacitors, Western route.

Fig. 21. A Youden diagram with 4 points indicating

unusually large systematic errors; standard cells, Eastern route.

1.018250

#2421?;

volt

1.018240

1.018230

1.018220

NCSL 1965 STANDARD CELLS WESTERN ROUTE

MGN-HLM 7-23-68

1.018220 1.018240 # 24189. volt

1.018280

Fig. 22. A Youden diagram indicating small random

error hut relatively large systematic error: standard cells, Western route.

120
.999980 1.000000 1.000020 1.0000 volt #3489

Fig. 23. Youden diagram for zener diodes, Eastern route.

1.018280

1.0183 volt 3488

1.018260

1.018240

NCSL 1965 ZENERS WESTERN ROUTE

MGN-HLM 6-15-68

(1.000059,1.018381)

.999930 .999950 .999970 1.0000 volt 3488

Fig. 24. Youden diagram for zener diodes. Western route.

131
THE INTERSERVICE MEASUREMENT AUDIT PROGRAM

G. G. May

Naval Air Rework Facility, San Diego, California 92135

Introduction

The primary purpose of the Interservice Measurement Audit Program, which was inaugurated

in 1959, is to confirm or reaffirm measurement ca- pability by measurement comparison among leading Government standards laboratories, together

with the National Bureau of Standards. A secondary purpose is to provide mutual assistance among

laboratories in analyzing and determining the causes of any measurement differences or errors noted during the audit. The third purpose is to pro- vide an opportunity for the technical personnel to discuss audit results, measurement techniques and

equijjment, and to make plans for the next aixdit. This is done at a symposium which is hosted by

one of the laboratories.

The laboratories which participate in the Interservice Measurement Audit are as follows

1. National Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, Maryland, or Boiilder, Colorado

depending on the measurement area

2. Navy Eastern Standards Laboratory

Washington, D.C.

3. Navy Western Standards Laboratory

North Island, San Diego, California

4. Array Primary Standards Laboratory

Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, Alabama

5. Air Force Primary Standards Laboratory

Newark, Ohio

6. ALO Primary Standards Laboratory

(Sandia Corporation)

Albuquerque, New Mexico

Organization

The responsibility for each audit is assigned on a

rotating basis to each of the participating Primary Standards Laboratories. The responsible

laboratory arranges for the audit items; plans the

shipping schedule ; opens and closes the audit ; re- ceives, tabulates and analyzes the measurement

data ; and plans and hosts the audit symposium.

Areas in which comparison measurements have

been made are shown in table 1. These measure- ment areas are chosen by mutual agreement at the

symposium held at the close of the preceding audit.

Measurement areas are selected from those that | have been previously audited as well as new areas. ! Special consideration is given to measurement

areas which are not tightly coupled to the National

Bureau of Standards.

Audit items are selected within the chosen meas- urement areas. General test procedures, test conditions and specific measuring points, packing and

shipping instructions are provided with each audit

pacKage.

An audit symposium, which is a high point of

the Interservice Measurement Audit, is held after

completion of the laboratory measurements. The

host laboratory collects, tabulates and analyzes

the data, and plans the symposium. A typical program would be similar to that presented at the

Fifth Interservice Audit. The program for this

audit symposium program included the

following

1. NBS investigations of errors in measure- ments—J. M. Cameron, NBS Washington

2. Measurements which cannot be tightly cou- pled to an NBS reference—Dave Russell,

NBS Boulder

3. Air Force Technical Audit Program

4. Navy Calibration Audits—S. Crandon, Navy

Pomona

5. Pitfalls in computer computations—L. F. Shampine, Sandia

6. Discussion of data from 5th InterserviceAEC Audit from a Statistician's Viewpoint—J. M. Cameron, NBS and D. A.

Edelman, Sandia

7. Presentation of audit data relative to each

audit item. This includes discussion of

measurement techniques, comparison of

measurement systems, and causes for errors noted during the audit

8. A tour of the host laboratory

9. A session for planning the next audit

A major advantage of the Interservice Audit

program is the open discussion and the mutual as- sistance provided among these laboratories in determining the causes of errors and measurement

disagreements. Problems wliich would be difficult for a single laboratory to resolve are simplified

when the knowledge and information available at

all laboratories are employed.

122
The values which can be realized from the Interservice Audit program are as numerous as the ways

in which errors creep into the final value applied

to the customer standards. These errors can develop even with the best standards, best instrumentation,

best measurement personnel, and the best data

processing systems. These values can best be

described by analyzing the causes of some of the

measurement errors which have occurred during

various audits.

The dimensional audit problem in 1960 consisted of measuring seven selected Hoke-style gage

blocks of 0.100, 0.200, 0.300, 0.400, 1.00, 3.00, and

4.00 inch nominal size. Grade A quality. Three

laboratories calibrated the gage blocks by mechanical comparison, one by interferometry, and one by both methods. Sixty-two of the seventy meas- urements involved were within ±1 micromch.

The measurement made by one laboratory on

the 0.100-inch block differed from the other laboratories by eight microinches. The reason for this

discrepancy was traced to the master gage block

which was found to be 7 microinches smaller than

the stated value. Whether the gage block had

shrunk subsequent to calibration, or whether in- correct calibration data had been supplied, was not

resolved. In any case, this master was not suitable

for use and was discarded.

Measurements made on the 3.00 inch and 4.00

inch blocks by one laboratory differed from the

other laboratories by 6 to 10 microinches respectively. During review of the measurement techniques it was noted that conversion of a 3.00-inch

measurement from the old U.S. inch (1 inch=

2.54000508 cm) to the international inch (1 inch =

2.54 cm) required the addition of six microinches.

This was equal to the error in the reported value

for the 3.00-inch gage block. Also, 8 microinches

must likewise be added to a 4.00-inch measurement, which would have reduced the reported

error to 2 microniches.

The agreement of the Directors of the National

Standards Laboratories of Australia, Canada, New

Zealand, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and

the United States to report gage block lengths in

international inches was inaugurated July 1, 1959.

The Interservice Audit measurements were per- formed about one year later. There were, however,

gage blocks still in use with calibration reports

m U.S. inches.

This particular audit assisted in locating a bad

master gage block, and brought to light errors which were introduced during computation and

reporting.

In 1968 the flowmeter audit problem consisted

of finding the K factor (cycles per gallon) vs. fre- quency characteristics of two Cox AN-8-4 and two

16 H turbine meters. A ten-point calibration on

each meter in an ascending order on one day and

a ten-point calibration in descending order the

following day. The average of the two measure- ment made at each point was recorded. The test fluid used was MIL-F-7024A, Type II, at a temperature near 80° F. The goal was to obtain cor- relation within ±0.15% among measurements

made by all laboratories.

A Cox 311 dynamic-weight flowmeter calibrator was used by all participating laboratories. The

test stand calibration consists of calibrating the

individual test-stand parameters. These parameters and estimated uncertainties are listed as follows

Temperature ±0.1° F (Maintained within

±0.5° F during flowmeter calibration)

Table 1. Interservice audit items, 1960-1968. \ AUDIT \ ITEM

YEAR \

TEMPERATURE

ANGLE

PRESSURE

FLOW

FLATNESS

MASS

ANGLE

LENGTH

CAPACITANCE RESISTANCE

DC

VOLTAGE

FREQUENCY

ATTENUATION

MICROWAVE

POWER

RESISTANCE

RATIO M

ICROWAVE

IMPEDANCE

DC

CURRENT

VIBRATION

1 960

FIRST AUDIT

X X X X

1961 SECOND

AUDIT

X X X X X

BAND X

1962 THIRD

AUDIT

X X

1963

FOURTH AUDIT

X X X X X

19 65

FIFTH

AUDIT

X X X X X X

1968 SIXTH AUDIT

X X X X

R

BftND R

BANC

332-932 0—6© 9 123
Viscosity ± 0.25 percent

Specific gravity ±0.02 percent

Adjustment of 1 to 1 lever arm

Adjustment of 50 to 1 lever arm

Electronic counter for elapsed time measure- ment

Electronic counter for frequency and total count measurements

The one hundred (fifty pairs) measurements re- ported for the model 16 H turbine flowmeters are

plotted on figure 2 in accordance with Youden

techniques. Values shown are relaive to the NBS

pair, which fixes the origin. The measurements

made by any one labortory are uniquely coded.

There has been no effort, however, to identify the

individual measurments by flowmeter frequency.

Three of the fifty points fall outside the enclosed

figure which represents ±0.15 percent from NBS

values. This figure could be shifted to encompass

all except one point.

The data received from one laboratory differed

from NBS values by 3 percent. Eeview of this

data indicated that an error had been made in

specific gravity because an incorrect conversion

factor had been used. This laboratory, which was

immediately notified of these findings, subsequently provided corrected data which is coded

c on figure 2. Using the same plotting techniques as above, the

eighty (forty pairs) measurements reported for

the AN-8-4 flowmeter are recorded on figure 3. These flowmeters were routed to laboratories in the

following order: O, NBS, + and ®. Since meas- urements coded O and © were performed by the

same laboratory, and the last two groups of meas- urements for turbine meters serial No. 9030 are somewhat lower than the first two groups of measurements, it is possible that the characteristics of

the turbine meter changed during the audit. The

check on this possibility the turbine meter is being

resubmitted to the NBS for a second calibration.

It is expected that the results of this recalibration

will be available prior to convening the audit

symposium.

This audit information which has not yet been

completely analyzed will be discussed at the next

symposium. To date the audit has uncovered a computational error and possibly a faulty transfer standard.

Keview of other audit reports reveals that many

problems are due to computation errors, wrong

conversion factors, transposition of numbers, etc. Summary

The VALUES of the Interservice Audit Program are many. As in any measurement comparison program, Interservice Audit participants can determine how well they are doing in relation to NBS and other laboratories. In addition the

mutual assistance provided each of the laboratories

in resolving measurement differences is beneficial

in reducing the time required before corrective ac- tion can be taken by individual laboratories. A

major part of the program is the audit symposium

which affords some opportunity for training, and

permits the discussion of measurement problems

directly by the technical personnel involved.

124
NCSL 68

SESSION 7: THE MANAGEMENT OF EQUIPMENT AND DATA

Chairman: J. C. Shackelford

LTV Electrosystems, Incorporated, Dallas, Texas 75222 AN INFORMATION SYSTEM FOR STANDARDS LABORATORIES

Wilbur J. Anson

Manager, Radio Standards and Measurements Information Center, Radio Standards Engineering Division, National Bureau of Standards, Boulder, Colorado 80302 The Radio Standards and Measurements Information Center is being established to help

solve measurement problems by collecting, analyzing, and disseminating measurement know-how applicable to standards and measurement techniques from 30 kHz through the millimeter-wave frequencies. The objectives, services, and techniques of the Center are

described. Feedback is solicited as to the kind of information and services likely to be most

useful.

Introduction

John F. Kennedy once pointed out that if all 50,000 years of mankind's recorded history were

compressed into one century, then airplanes, radio,

and TV would have been developed last month and we would be certain to reach the moon before midnight tonight

!

With such rapid progress has come a mass of

information. According to the Brooks Institute of

Santa Barbara, the technical information generated during he last three years is equivalent in

volume to that generated during the entire 19th

Century. Current estimates indicate that more than

a million significant documents, journal articles,

technical reports, etc., are produced each year, worldwide, m science and technology. Even just

the portion of technology concerned with measure- ment know-how—standards and measurement

techniques and related instrumentation—contain

a tremendous volume of knowledge.

We at NBS attempt to assist industry, universities, and other government agencies in coping

with technological advances by developing standards and measurement techniques and offering cali- bration services so that the technical community

can interface with the national standards. But

repeatedly, on trips that I and others have taken, we are told that in addition to standards and cali- brations, engineers and scientists need to know how

to use these standards—how to make the most of

the calibrations we provide—now to set up, use, and evaluate measurement systems. These people

would like to get authoritative and timely measure- ment know-how—not just documents, not just

standards, and not just calibrations ; although each

serves a function.

That is why we have started a specialized technical information analysis center on radio standards and measurements. The goal is that the center

will provide specialized bibliographies, survey

articles, and stat«-of-the-art reviews, as well as assistance in answering specific technical questions

and assistance in program planning. However,

since an information center is a user-oriented activ- ity and the gestation period is long, interaction

with potential users is particularly important

while the center is in the formative stage. In that

way the subjects and services most needed can be

pinpointed and, as a result, less time and money

will be spent to make the center maximally useful.

Therefore, I am inviting and encouraging your

comments about the information and services most

wanted from our Radio Standards and Measurements Information Center.

Objectives of the Radio Standards and

Measurements Information Center

The mission of the Center is to help solve meas- urement problems by selectively assembling, analyzing, and disseminating information applicable

to radio standards and measurements in the fre- quency range from 30 kHz through the millimeter- wave frequencies. The principal emphasis is upon

standards and measurement techniques for various

electrical quantities in that frequency range.

Among the electrical quantities covered are power,

voltage, current, impedance, noise, Q, attenuation,

field strength, and phase shift. Coverage may be

125
extended to the sub-millimeter wave and the far

infrared region wherein generation and detection

devices, properties of materials, and new components would also be included.

Services of the Radio Standards and

Measurements Information Center

Current Awareness List: The current awareness

listings are by-products of the systematic examination of current technical journals. Articles

within the scope of the information center are

identified, and those sufficiently relevant are procured and processed for the information files of

the center. As a part of this process it is relatively

easy to make a list of current articles and send these

regularly to subscribers. Presently our current awareness list appears as a regular feature of the

IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement Group's

Newsletter every two months, but within six

months an expanded version will be offered as a bi-weekly service. Technical Comultation: Because the center is part of the Radio Standards Engineering Division,

it can contact specialists or arrange for direct consultation as appropriate in order to answer questions. Of course, as the information file of the

center grows, many of the routine questions can be

answered promptly from the files and thus spare

the Division's technical staff for the knotty questions and for their own research.

File Searches: When the center's information

file has grown to the point that it represents a

fairly substantial and comprehensive collection in some of its subject areas, then rapid file searches can be made to provide references or substantive answers to technical questions. The capability for

such searching is based upon (1) the content of

each document being coded in detail, and (2) the

use of quick-response search equipment. We have

the equipment and techniques now, but it will be

from one to three years before the information file is large enough for comprehensive searching. If

money were available for the necessary personnel,

the time scale could be shortened to less than a year. Custom Searches and Surveys : Surveys of technical activity around the country or special litera- ture searches on contract provide a useful service as well as adding significantly to the information

file. The end product can be tailored to suit the

need of the customer and may be in any of the

following forms

:

Bibliography

Annotated bibliography (descriptive)

Annotated bibliography (comparative or

critical)

Bibliography with documents collected and

bound

Survey paper

State-of-the-art review

Special-purpose article (such as a "how to do

it" article for the general engineer rather

than for the measurement specialist. The

criteria for such articles are discussed later)

.

Special-Purpose Articles. The production of

technical surveys, state-of-the-art reviews, and

other special purpose articles is one of the main

functions of specialized technical information

analysis centers. Dr. Alvin Wineberg, Director of the Oak Ridge

National Laboratory said in his report "Science,

Government, and Information" published by the

President's Science Advisory Committee in 1963

Scholarly reviews, articles, and critical bibliographies also play an important

part m easing the information crisis. They serve the special needs of both the

established workers in a field and the

graduate student entering the field, as well as the general needs of the nonspecialist. Review writing is a task worthy

of the deepest minds, able to recast, critically analyze, synthesize, and illu- minate large bodies of results. The rela- tion of the reviewer to the existing but

widely scattered bits of knowledge re- sembles the relation of the theorist to available pieces of experimental information. Surveys and state-of-the-art reviews have always

been an important NBS product; hence, in a sense, the information center adds nothing new to the

product line of the Radio Standards Engineering

Division. However, a goal of the center is to make

it easier for the Division's technical staff to prepare

comprehensive reviews for publication. Also, as necessary to produce special surveys, studies, or

reviews, the center will contract with specialists

outside of NBS.

In addition to the traditional reviews and sur- veys, I sense a need for articles especially written

for the general engineer rather than for the meas- urement specialist—for articles that bridge the

gap between those written for the measurement

specialist and the procedures written for the cali- bration technician. We at NBS usually must de- velop measurement techniques and standards for

the greatest accuracy. In contrast, the engineer and

scientist in industry and other agencies usually

must consider trade-offs between parameters such

as reliability, dependability, cost, user knowledge

required, maintenance required, and equipment

required. Not all of these parameters could be

fully covered in the series of articles that I visualize, but at least measurement techniques could be

outlined and critically compared in such a way that

the general engineer, pressed for time, could more

efficiently select the methods to be studied further.

My experience in industry and NBS suggests

that a blending of the specialized knowledge of

126
the NBS measurement specialist with the experi- ence and know-how of those outside NBS could

produce valuable "Metrology Guides." Some of

the guides would contain a comparison of techniques, and would consider some of the parameters

just mentioned; others would be tailor-made to

specific measurement problems. I am developing

the criteria and a sample for the "Metrology

Guides" series so as to determine whether the

guides would meet customer needs well enough to secure financial support.

Techniques and Equipment for Storage

and Retrieval

The Peeh-a-Boo Filing System,: This system was

chosen because it has adequate capacity for several

years, is self-contained, is browsable, and uses the

coordinate-term retrieval approach.

The Peek-a-boo system is an optical-coincidence

search method, in which a few of many cards

each peppered with holes—are stacked together and

light shines through the holes that line up. Each

card represents a word or phrase that could describe a document; each hole represents a number

which in turn identifies a document—and the few

cards stacked together represent a selection of

words or phrases that fit the question being asked.

Holes that then coincide and let light shine through

identify documents that are described by all the

words and phrases of that particular stack of cards.

This ability of the system to coordinate terms

(words and phrases) give great flexibility to the

way in which the collection is searched. For ex- ample, some questions may be best answered by

searching for a combination of technical terms;

other questions yield to a combination of document

descriptors such as year of publication, kind of

document (trip report, NBS report, etc.), plus a few technical content descriptors.

About 30,00 references are the maximum that can be stored in the system without awkward manipulation of cards. Eventually, therefore, we will

likely use computer techniques. To ease any further

changeover we are adhering to conventional standards and practices as much as possible.

Of course, the computer could have been used

from the beginning, but certain advantages of the

Peek-a-boo prevailed. Since the Peek-a-boo system

is self-contained, there is no standing in line to use

the computer. No specialized programming knowledge is needed, and therefore anyone can use the

system with just a few minutes of instruction.

Tape-OontroUed Typewriter : A tape-controlled

typewriter will contain a memory bank of bibli- ographic citations. Use of this unit and the optical

coincidence search equipment will make it easy to prepare specialized bibliographies, whether for current awareness lists, for special publication, or

in answer to questions.

Index: In the index we use a controlled vocabulary to restrict the size of the vocabulary and yet

allow for some natural growth. Care has been taken

to arrange the index for easy use, because it is anticipated that others in addition to information

center personnel will use the index to locate

documents in our files. Approach

Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce Chalmers Sherwin defined a specialized technical information center in terms of its function

". . . to collect, critically evaluate, skillfully compress, and creatively organize all of the significant

world-wide scientific and technical literature in a particular subject area for its more efficient utili- zation in science, technology, industry, and the

government."

In his report "Science, Government, and Information," Dr. Alvin Weinberg said that ... a specialized information center makes its business to know everything

that is being published in a special field such as nuclear spectroscopy or the thermal physical properties of chemical compounds. It collates and reviews the data

and provides its subscribers with regularly issued compilations, critical reviews,

specialized bibliographies, and other such

tools. "Specialized information centers, to be

fully effective, must be operated in closest possible contact with working scientists

and engineers in the field. The most suc- cessful centers are an intrinsic part of

science and technology. The centers not

only disseminate and retrieve information; they create new information. . . . Making a discriminating selection of data, as was done in preparing the International Critical Tables, requires scientific insight of the highest order, and it itself

is an essential scientific activity."

These are good definitions of what an ideal information center should be; but no system is any

better than it proves to be in operation. However,

this establishes a goal for the Radio Standards and

Measurements Information Center.

"5'e Who Moves Mountains Begins hy Carrying

Awm/ PeSJZes": In general, our approach is to work towards a carefully defined goal by completing individual tasks having useful by-products.

The by-products also provide feedback to check

the reasonableness of the approach before we are committed too strongly to a particular direction.

For example, much of the value of any specialized technical information center is based upon

a comprehensive collection of documents that have

been coded in such a way that they can be easily

127
and rapidly retrieved to answer technical questions. The building of such a collection takes considerable time and effort. If one were to collect in

all subject areas at the same time, it would be

years before enough of a collection existed for any

meaningful searches to be made. Therefore, we

are collecting in small areas with specific end

products in mind. For example, we are now col- lecting information on power, attenuation, phase

shift, and impedance standards and measurement

techniques published between January 1966 and

December 1968. This particular collection is aimed

at helping Division members in preparing URSI

reports, but its usefulness will be multiplied by

becoming part of the center's deeply indexed in- formation file.

It would be more efficient and more generally

useful if we could work in all of our subject areas

at the same time. Accordingly, we are actively seeking contracts for custom work that would add

rapidly to the information file. Now that we have

the equipment and techniques, progress is almost

directly proportional to the available personnel

and that is mainly a function of available money.

Conclusion

Now is the time to shape the Center to your

needs. So I repeat my invitation to the readers of

this article to communicate with me and let me

know what information and services would be most

useful.

128
ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS IN THE INTRODUCTION OF AN

AUTOMATIC MEASURING SYSTEM

George W. Pentico

Senior Staflf Engineer, Western Electric Co., Inc, Lee's Summit, Missouri 65800 A number of administrative problems connected with the introduction of automatic

measuring systems in the manufacturing plant are discussed and the decisions made in a

particular situation are described

Introduction

The Kansas City Works of the Western Electric

Company, Manufacturing and Supply Unit of the

Bell System, located at Lee's Summit, Missouri,

concentrates its activities in two rather diverse

areas. One is the manufacture of electron devices

such as vacuum tubes, transistors, semiconductor

diodes, thermocouples, varistors, switchboard

lamps, etc. The other is the manufacture of carrier

telephone equipment, both wire-line and radio.

The testing problems presented by these diverse

fields are of course quite different, but they share

certain common problems. Among these are

1. The everpressing problem of the high cost of

testing.

2. The large number of measurements to be

made.

3. Perennial demands for improved accuracy

and precision.

4. Scarcity of skilled personnel and the high

cost of training them.

5. The high cost and the time required to collect data and analyze it to monitor process control and

acceptability of product.

6. Necessity of periodic calibration of test equipment and the cost of doing it. I am sure that the problems listed have a fa- miliar ring, for they are certainly not confined to the Western Electric Company or to the electronic

manufacturing industry.

For some time we have been introducing auto- matic test sets in an effort to solve some of the

problems posed above. Until recently most of these

had been m the electron devices shop in the area

of testing diodes, transistors, and switchboard

lamps. In most cases, the logic was hard-wired or patch-board wired. The sets were relatively unsophisticated, single-purpose sets. In the wired

equipment shops, automatic test sets were limited

primarily to continuity testing or testing 6r relay

circuits. Again, they were relatively unsophisticated, usually with patch-board wiring, although

a few used punched paper tape programming. In

most cases, data was not collected except during

trouble periods. Experience with these sets has been

encouraging in general; testing costs have been

reduced and rate of testing increased.

A new generation of test sets is now appearing

in the shop. Computers are being introduced as the

control element, and programming is by "software", rather than by wiring. The flexibility of the

test set is increased but so is its complexity, and a number of new problems are introduced in the administrative and operating areas. This paper dis- cusses some of the problems encountered and the

decisions made in a particular situation.

We were faced with the requirement to provide

a transmission-measuring test set with improved

insertion-loss measuring accuracy, and the capability to measure phase, in the frequency range

of 50 MHz to 90 MHz. Insertion loss in dB is defined as 10 log P1/P2, as shown in A and B of

figure 1. Aft«r surveying commercial instruments

and in- company designs available, we decided to build the Programmed Transmission Measuring

Test Set shown in figure 2, which was developed by

the Measurements Group at the Bell Telephone

Laboratories. The capabilities of the test set are shown in table 1 and a simplified block diagram in

figure 3. Building this test set and arranging to place it in operation in the manufacturing shop

forced us to make decisions in a number of associated areas. Advantages

In considering a proposal for the introduction of an automatic measuring system, both the advantages and disadvantages should be considered. The

relative importance of various aspects of the situation will, of course, depend upon the particular

circumstances. Automatic systems will usually

make individual measurements much more quickly

than manual ones. As an example, in the set we

have built, the system balances within 0.01 dB in

not more than three iterations, starting with 30

129
dB unbalance. At frequencies above 2 KHz, this is accomplished in 0.10 seconds. The increased speed

of measurement can be used to test more items in

the same length of time ; thus, reducing test time

for each item, or it can be used to make more tests on the same number of items. For example, the

frequency characteristic of a filter or amplifier can be checked at more frequencies than is feasible

with manual operation. If the test system is fully

utilized, the net cost per data point will be reduced

despite the increase m total cost. It has been esti- mated that the cost per data point for the auto- matic system will be reduced to about one percent

of that of a manually operated system.

It is usually possible to improve both accuracy

and precision of an automatic test set over that

obtained by a manual test set. Several factors

contribute to this improvement

:

1. Elimination of operator mistakes.

2. Elimination of operator bias in reading measurements. It is well known that most people tend

to read instruments consistently high or low.

3. Reduction of effects of noise by using the

average of several separate measurements. With

this automatic test set, it is feasible to use the

average of 16 to 32 measurements without noticeable delay in obtaining results, if results are typed

out on a teletypewriter. The time required to do

this with manual operation is usually prohibitive.

4. Reduction of the effects of drift, since the

operating cycle is very short. The automatic operation of the system reduces

the requirements of skill to a minimum, and con- sequently minimizes the problems of training the

operator. This is not an unalloyed blessing, as will

be noted later. However, it does reduce the problems encountered with operator turnover, since

training periods are reduced. As we all know, it takes a great deal of training and much practice to develop a skilled tester with good judgement.

With a computer-controlled system, it is possible to write programs which will check the operation of the system with a minimum of help from

the operator. This is true both of the computer

itself and the overall system and allows the introduction of standardized periodic checking of the

operating condition of the system, with a minimum of effort by either the operator or the maintenance personnel. If the expected output is not

obtained, maintenance work can then be done.

Test results can be made available in several

forms from an automatic test set. Punched cards,

paper tape, magnetic tape, teletype or line printers, or direct transmission to data processing

equipment are of course all available. If enough

memory capacity is available in the controlling

computer, the data processing can be accomplished locally. Such processing can take any form

desired. In the particular test set which we have

built, the data typed out is the average of 8, 16, 32,

64, 128, 256, or 512 separate measurements as se- lected. The standard deviation of the group of

measurements is also typed out. Much more

sophisticated treatment of the data is possible;

and it is even possible to have the machine plot

frequency distributions or other curves. One piece

of optional equipment not shown in the photograph is a pair of X-Y plotters which will plot curves of the output data. The maximum plotting

rate is about four points per second, which is limited by the slew rate of the plotters.

Disadvantages

Before we get carried away with optimism

thinking that the introduction of automatic test

sets will solve all our problems in measurements

or testing, let us consider some of the penalties of

introducing automatic systems.

One of the most overpowering ones at first glance is the large increases in all categories of

cost : development and design, capital investment,

maintenance, and the added one of programming.

It takes some time to become accustomed to the

approximate doubling in cost of the first two

categories, and a thorough analysis should be made

to make sure that the increase is justified. Of

course, if a particular characteristic is required

and that is the only way it can be obtained, there

is no question. In our particular case the development work, much of the design work, and some

of the programming had already been done by

the Bell Telephone Laboratories. New designs of

filters and equalizers which we were to manufacture required phase measurements. We had no

test equipment which would measure phase. Requirements on previous items had been in terms

of envelope delay distortion. This can be calculated from phase measurements, but the reverse cannot be done to the accuracy' required. The cost of providing a manually-operated loss and phase

measuring test set for the frequency range of 50

MHz to 90 MHz, with an accuracy of 0.03 dB for

loss and 0.2 dgree for phase, was estimated to be

about $100,000. Wliile this set would have been

adequate for present requirements, it would have

been outmoded in a few years. The automatic test

set, at somewhat less than twice the cost, will pro- vide the most accurate facility available at this

time and will probably retain that status for about

five years. In addition, its speed of operation is high enough that a good deal of the final testing

performed on our other test sets can be transferred

to it at a considerable savings in testing cost. Another disadvantage in automatic test sets is that more highly skilled maintenance people are

required. In addition to competence in the ordinary type of instrumentation, they must also be- come well versed in the operation of digital

circuits. Since the system is more complex, it takes

longer for the individual to achieve the intimate

knowledge required for successful troubleshooting. This is true even with the availability of

automatic checking programs. The maintenance

130
man and engineer must become able to diagnose

the ills from the symptoms of a very complex sys- tem. In addition, both engineering and maintenance personnel must acquire familiarity with

programming. Since the former will usually originate and prove-in the programs, they will need more proficiency than the maintenance people, but

a certain minimum of competence will be required

for efficient maintenance. It would, of course, be

possible to contract for maintenance work on the

computer portion of the system if a commercially

available computer is used as the control element.

We considered this approach but discarded it for

two reasons. We were 500 miles from the supplier's nearest field office, and did not feel we could afford

to have the system out of service for the length of

time it would take to get service. Also, we felt that

in order to do good maintenance work on the sys- tem, the person should be able to work on all parts

of it. This attitude means that any person assigned

to work on the system must become familiar with

the entire system.

One of the penalties in the use of an automatic

test system for some organizations would be the

limitation in flexibility m use of test equipment.

Some laboratories or testing organizations use temporary combinations of standard instruments

for testing as the need arises. This reduces the

capital investment involved, but requires assembly

of test setups and verification that the combination

operates properly, which can be quite time-consuming. Such a consideration did not apply in our

situation, since for practically all production test- ing, we dedicate the test equipment to a particular

permanent setup. For high volume production, this

is of course necessary; but even for intermittent

runs, we feel this pays off since the equipment is always there ready to operate with no assembly

and a minimum of checking. We normally manufacture the same product or type of product over

a period of many years. While an automatic test set with a short operating cycle reduces the amount of test time re- quired, by the same token it also results in the

rapid acquisition of large amounts of faulty data

if the system is not operating properly. Information concerning the standard deviation of the test results is valuable in monitoring the operation,

since normally it should be very small and any

increase is cause for suspicion. Quite frequent limited checks of the system will be necessary to monitor its operation.

One aspect of the introduction of such systems

which usually receives very little consideration is their effect on worker motivation. Recent studies

in this field have indicated that reducing the job content tends to lead to worker dissatisfaction,

since it denies the worker the feeling of accomplishment, which derives from making a signifi- cant contribution toward some goal. Some companies have been experimenting with giving

workers more responsibility and increasing the

scope of a job. They have found that in certain

circumstances at least this has resulted in increased

productivity and more satisfaction on the part of

the worker. Introduction of automatic systems in

which the worker is reduced to the role of feeding

a machine would seem to be a change in the wrong

direction from this viewpoint. Perhaps, if auto- matic feeding of the machine can also be introduced and the worker given complete charge of the

system operation including responsibility for

troubleshooting, overall quality, scheduling, etc.,

it might help. Redesign of the product might be

required to make this possible. It should certainly

be considered in design of new product.

Maintenance Considerations

As already mentioned, with a computer-controlled sjstem it is possible to write programs

which will provide means of routine checking of

the functioning of both the computer and the complete system. Some activity on the part of the

maintenance personnel or the operator performing the tests is required. If marginal operation or

a malfunction is indicated, maintenance work must

be done. We have a policy of periodic checking of

all test equipment to insure proper functioning.

The interv^al used is based on engineering judgment concerning the complexity of the circuits in- volved, the reliability of the equipment, the

margin between design capabilities and required

performance, and experience. As a rule of thumb, we usually start out with six-month intervals, unless the responsible engineer feels that the equipment is unstable enough to require more frequent

checks, or if little or no margin exists between

the test set capabilities and the accuracy of the

measurement required. If experience shows that

few adjustments are required at the prescribed

interval, it will be lengthened. On the other hand,

if frequent troubles are reported between scheduled checks, the interval will be shortened. In the

latter circumstances, the shop's inability to meet

required tolerance on product is often the trigger

for the unscheduled maintenance calls. It was decided to use the same routine on the computer

section of the system and to check its operation

periodically.

Because of the situation described earlier, it seemed best that maintenance of the whole system

be done in-house and by the regular test set maintenance organization. The maintenance personnel

must be trained in digital circuit operation and

computer maintenance. It was helpful that some

of these people had already been initiated into

digital circuit operation to some extent, with the

introduction of digital instruments such as counters and digital meters into the shop.

A choice of methods was available for accompplishing this training. The maintenance men could

be sent to the supplier's school, or the maintenance

supervisor could attend the school and train his

131
people, or the responsible engineer could attend

the maintenance school and conduct training ses- sions on his return. We chose the second course. In our company, the supervisor is traditionally

responsible for training his people. Since the

hourly-paid workers are more mobile than supervisors, both within the company and as regards to leaving the company, we believed that we had a

better chance of recovering our investment in the

training session at the supplier's plant if the

supervisor were sent. If there were a change in

maintenance personnel, the supervisor would be

able to train the new ones. It was also felt that it was more appropriate for the supervisor to do this

than an engineer. We did have an engineer in the

Test Set Design organization attend the supplier's

programming school. The engineer and two as- sistants who will do the planning for the shop

operation of the system are quite familiar with

computer programming. The maintenance supervisor who attended the maintenance school felt afterward that the experience would have been more valuable if he had attended the basic pro- gramming school first, since he had considerable

difficulty in following the instructor. We had in- quired if this were advisable when making the

arrangements for his attendance. The reply had

been that it was not necessary ; that the class pres- entation would not assume familiarity with computers. Experience did not confirm this. System Utilization

Wlien a large capital investment is made in such

a system, it seems obvious that there should be careful planning to insure maximum benefit from it. The Bell Laboratories personnel, based on experi- ence with use of the developmental system, felt that to insure efficient use of the system, someone

should be available who was thoroughly familiar

with its capabilities and limitations. In addition,

he should be well informed in the fundamentals

and principles of transmission measurements. Our

consultant on electrical measurements will take this

responsibility.

As in all measurement fields, if the measure- ments are not made under the proper conditions,

the results will not be valid. As an example, in

making insertion-loss measurements to an accuracy

of 0.001 dB, the sum of the return losses at the

measuring terminals of the system and the ter- minals of the device under test must be about 86

dB at both input and output connections. Unless

this condition is satisfied, the accuracy of the meas- urement will be degraded, and if the person making

the measurement is not aware of the requirement,

he will ignore the error. Someone should also schedule the use of the sys- tem, to avoid both idle periods and disappointment

due to unavailability of the system when desired.

In a laboratory situation, it may be wise to have

the actual measurements performed by an individual assigned to operate the system, since he will

become familiar with the normal operation and

thus should be able to detect trouble symptoms.

The time of professional people will not be con- sumed in performing what it is hoped will be a routine task. Such a procedure also simplifies

multishift operation of the facility which should

certainly be considered if one system does not have

sufficient capacity to satisfy the demand.

With such a large investment, it is also desirable

to strive for maximum flexibility of control in the

system. Delegation of many of the control and

logic functions of the system to the computer soft- ware rather than hard wiring or plug boards helps

accomplish this objective. Programming is expensive, but in most cases the flexibility provided

allows utilization of the system for more purposes

than would otherwise be possible, or at least convenient. Needless to say, provision for this capability should be incorporated in the initial design

of the system. Modifications are usually costly and

the results often not as satisfactory as if the

feature were included in the original construction.

Another feature which will enhance the con- venience of operation and may be a necessity under

certain conditions is provision for measurements

at locations remote from the system. With our sys- tem, transmission measurements have been made

at a distance of about YOO feet over connecting

coaxial cables, with a degradation of accuracy of

about ten to one, over a frequency range of about

0.1 MHz to 20 MHz for losses up to 70 dB. Additional work will probably improve these results.

Conclusions

Based on our limited experience to date, we feel that the general philosophy which governed our

decisions has been confirmed. For example, our

decision to maintain the computer ourselves and

have each person assigned to it capable of working on the complete system seems to be correct. In some types of trouble situations, there is considerable interaction between the computer and the test

set. In such circumstances, it is necessary to be

familiar with the complete system operation to locate the source of the trouble. We have already

made minor modifications to some of the original

proposals as further study indicated the advisability of doing so. We expect that future developments will confirm the wisdom of the decision to introduce additional and more complex automatic

systems into our plant. Incidently, in the fabrication process we are also introducing more and more

automatic punch presses, milling machines, drill presses, etc. Some of the problems connected with

their introduction are very similar to those which

have been discussed herein, such as maintenance

and programming.

132
Indeed, one might almost say that to resist this

trend is to run the risk of obsolescence and subsequent failure of a business. With the continuing

increase in labor costs, every effort must be made

to reduce the labor content of product. Introduction of automatic systems seems to be one method

of accomplishing this. Acknowledgments

The author wishes to express appreciation to Mr. G. D. Hayne and his associates of the Bell

Telephone Laboratories, Inc.^ for the time spent

by them in discussing the design and operation of

this system to enable him to gam an understanding

of it.

It ll

1 rn t. - I

: niiin ••

jji -J I

'

i

r : 'r i

M j

SOURCE LOAD

0 Zr

C5/

A -REFERENCE CONDITION

2 DEVICE UNDER

TEST

2 SOURCE LOAD

^P2

B - TEST CONDITION

Figure 1. Reference and test conditions for measuring

insertion loss.

FiGUBE 2. The programmed transmission measuring test

set.

TH€ BASIC TRANSMISSION LOSS

COMPARISON MEASURING SYSTEM

MEASURING FR£Q. mERM£PIATe FREa DIGITAL DOUBLE DETECTION TRANSMISSION MEASURING SET

FiGUBE. 3. Block diagram.

Table 1. Test set capabilities

Frequency:

Signal level

:

Loss:

Gain:

Phase:

Delay

:

Range

50 Hz-250 MHz

-5 to —50 dBm

0-100 dB

0-40 dB

0-360°

Setability 0.01 Hz

5 dB

0.001 dB for loss (or gain)

less than 20 dB

0.01°

Impedance

50 and 75 ohm, unbalanced

135 and 600 ohm, balanced and

unbalanced

Plug-in impedances and highimpedance probes

Maximum Accuracy

3 parts in 10' ±2 dB

±0.001 dB for less than 10 dB loss at 0.01 MHz to 100 MHz; ±0.01 dB for loss (or gain) <40 dB, increasing to ±0.03 dB at 250 MHz

±0.01° for loss (or gain) <40 dB, increasing

to ±0.18° at 250 MHz

55/Af microseconds, where Af is selected by

engineer

Frequency Range

50 Hz-250 MHz

50 Hz-3 MHz

50 Hz-20 MHz

133
PROCESSING TECHNICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE DATA WITHIN THE

STANDARDS LABORATORY

L. Darling

Supervisor Measurement Standards, Sperry Rand Corporation, Univac Data Processing Division,

Utica, New York 1350 An operating system in its broad routine aspects is described, emphasizing its managerial necessity, and its numerous capabilities, and offering guidelines for development of

one's own system.

Introduction

This paper includes the description of a reasonably

complete but non-complex real data-handling sys- tem which has been dubbed the "Tool Calibration

Report." I suggest the desirability of providing

a skeptical cost-conscious higher management with

enough understandable information to convince

them why your facility is really needed, why it is so large and expensive, and why you need to ex- pand. The paper considers the numerous capabilities which are partly a function of the basic datahandling design, your imagination, the extent of

your computer system, and the expansion of usage

as experience reveals its potentials. Some generalized discussion of our system follows to provide

guidance for developing your own system. A final section mentions other data-handling considerations within or concerning the laboratory.

An Instrument Control System

Our current completely functional system is designed to perform numerous semi-technical functions required to maintain control of precision

standards, tools and equipment, and to provide as- sociated management data. This system is capable

of effectively producing a profit; if it does not it is improperly designed, perhaps not even required.

This effective profit comes in the form of providing needed functions or data not practically possible with a hand-operated system. It produces a higher volume of necessary information,—quicker,

with less effort,—covers more areas,—integrates some data and gives directions based on accumulated data. It also makes it possible to disseminate

necessary information to the proper areas in an

easily understandable form. To do the latter, it reports by exception, giving only thait data re- quired, thus avoiding confusion. Management data

is available by direct reports for both laboratory

and higher management. A flexible design was desired, but here we missed the boat. Our views were

too narrow when the system was developed. We can

obtain all the data contained in any printout combination, but major changes in the type of program

which the system can accomplish are limited.

Most reports in our system hinge around the

word "calibration." Now at first glance this may

lead one to confuse our scheme with the familiar

instrument recall system. This function is a notable

and active one, but it is not the single major factor

in "control."

The system to be detailed is a compromise between feast and famine. It is presently operative

using a simple card-controlled form of data processing in a very small computer system. Our new

and yet unproven system utilizes a medium-tolarge computer, producing more data with an improved format, and requires much less input

effort. Our system contains seven major subsystems with

fourteen associated sections. The first sub-system is Instrument Recall, which consists of a "Calibrations Due Report" package with a printout segre- gated by locaition, and a corresponding preprinted

mailing sticker for attaching to an intra-faotory

mailing envelope. Its purpose is to provide a simple means for each affected department to obtain

a listing of equipment due for recertification. It also provides Quality Control with a policing

device.

Now that we have all this equipment on its way

to the laboratory, provisions better be made to handle the work. This is accomplished by the next

sub-system, Laboratory Instrument Work Load

Control, which includes a "Calibration Work Load

Report". This contains the same items as the "Calibrations Due Report" package, but the format

changes. It is condensed, and tools (i.e., instruments) are listed in tool number order to allow

laboratory supervision to schedule the work ac- cording to priorities and to the man assigned each

job. An interpreter-card deck, from which these

two reports were generated, is supplied in tool IM
number order. These cards are called "Update

Cards" and contain only that data subject to nor- mal change, thus providing a verifying guide for

the user. They are used by laboratory personnel to keep track of their time, to list the class of calibration and to update the indicated data, such as the new due-date. Tool number order is compatible

with our historical and calibration files as well as with all other factory records on each instrument.

We also receive a "Tool Calibrations Due Report,"

which lists all the instruments in the system m or- der of due date. This shows a long-term picture of

work and allows adjustments in scheduling to be

made in advance.

Lest things get out of hand and we miss something, we have the convenient System Master Reports. Each of these three contains all the data

m the master deck, but the printout sequence

changes on each, to best serve the required purposes. The "Weekly Tool Calibration Master Listmg by Tool Number Order" keeps the laboratory

up-to-date. The "Quarterly Tool Calibration Master Listing by Category Order" is also sublisted by

manufacturer, then model designation. This allows

inventory control of spare parts, and permits

tracking failures of specific made and model of

equipment. A great deal of semi-technical and

management data may be extracted from this very

useful listing. The "Quarterly Tool Calibration

Master Listing by Location" is useful for audit,

budget and similar functions. These reports have

endless possibilities of usage. Everyone knows that the efficiency of a laboratory and its technical personnel is questionable and

cannot be defined anyway ! However, we decided in our ignorance to generate a sub-system for laboratory time and classification efficiency. The "Calibration Time Report" shows how many items were

calibrated by eacli person, and the number of items

and hours he required above the alloted (goal)

time. It will show over a period of time, a person

who is not running with the average. Can you

picture the manager's face when he finds out you

have a "Weekly Hour Breakdown by Operator

Report" showing the hours per type of work (Administrative, Technical, Repairs and Miscellaneous Routine Calibrations) and time used at each

level of calibration. To show departmental loading for accounting purposes the "Calibration Time

by Location Report" is included. This also shows

by location the number of items dependent upon

the laboratory for service. Knowing that no one can attain perfection, we

have the next sub-system. Error Check. The "Update Listing, Tool Number Order" is a printout

of the "Update Cards" of completed work of the

previous week. This may be scanned for keypunch

input-data or processing errors. Equipment loading trends are also detectable. The "Tool Calibration Card Control Report" assures that the correct number of cards are in the master deckThe Data Processing Procedures sub-system has

a set of "Run Instructions" provided by the Management Systems (Programming) Department.

They also retain all "Update Cards" and "Master

Decks" for six months. This permits easy error

correction without loss of the master data.

The final sub-system, the largest, is called Special Data Reports. This allows a. print-out of any

or all of the data in the master deck, with the

information ordered in any desired sequence or

sub-sequence. We can obtain anything from total manpower requirements for the year, to level of

calibration procedures of certain equipment, or the number of failures in brand X.

Design of Your System

To develop your own system, think practically,

and don't allow unqualified prejudgment to scare you off. The immediate impression of the potential

complexities of an Instrument Control System, or perhaps the computer language which could be

involved, must not bias you ! Look at your total goal, define one item at a time, and then let the

computer programmer go to work. You can avoid

a major problem by designing your system to be

as -flexible as possible. This will allow for the in- evitable changes, as your knowledge of the need

increases. (A beginner will not really know what

is needed in speci-fic tertns.) Do not allow this vir- tue of flexibility to continually change your routine operations or reporting format. Such changes

should be undertaken only when enough significant improvements can be anticipated. Constant

change breeds misunderstanding.

In terminology, we run into the technically correct terms, versus those whose usages are commonly understood. A careful compromise will update

others' thinking, without loss of understanding.

Technically correct changes can be made gradually

in the format during a system updating or modification. We must be able to commimicate with data

processing programmers or we will never get a system. Repeating a necessary condition: Think

practically, look at your needs one item at a time,

and define them so TOU can understand them. At

the risk of being childish, commit all of this to writing. As you well know, that which was so clear in your mind becomes next to impossible to write down so it makes sense. However, herein

lies the key to the communications link between

the programmer, yourself, and the users. Do not confine your system to its so-called technical aspects, those which you are most used to dealing with, but include management-type data

!

Make this tool work for you by providing educational information and capabilities. Set down a simple example of the potentials of managerial

and educational aspects. A simple total of the

yearly calibration hours supplies you and higher

management with data concerning a portion of

your laboratory personnel requirements. It pro135
vides the seldom available, factual justification

usually only hypothesized. Another point to keep

in mind is that paper is cheaper than mistakes

caused by overly complex, misunderstood, multiusage forms. However, a giant paper mill is just as self-destructive.

A summary of some things we consider as desirable in a control system

1. It must accomplish the necessary tasks

effectively.

2. It must show an effective profit.

3. It must use language understood by all recipients.

4. It must be flexible enough to change with

the times and to fill unex-pected needs.

5. It must have all unnecessary data removed

from any report.

6. It must be able to supply all data available

within practical limits.

7. It must limit input-output paper to practical

numbers, and in a practical form for eacJi user.

8. It must contain enough management data to result in an effective overall control system.

Management Data

I have already expressed a number of management-oriented ideas, but a, few additional points

should be reviewed. A quick look at higher management quite often discloses a man who takes

both an accounting and a production viewpoint.

You and I are quite apt to retire into our technically oriented shell and think only along these narrow lines. Under these conditions we cannot

supply the necessary justifying data, or speak

accurately or adequately in terms that are understood by others. In other words we haven't done

our job. We probably don't really know our job

if we don't have a good control system, since we

must operate by "guesstimate" rather than facts. Yes ! It is our job to supply the required information to higher management, which needs to un- derstand and thus justify the laboratory up the

next rung of the ladder. Consider—we are the ex- perts in our field, higher management is not. They

therefore, must have information translated from

technical to monitorial and production terms in

order to understand and thus add support to our

facility. Here again two-way education is the keynote to success. Higher management can be guided

by obvious needs, government regulations, or

corrective action in problem areas, but our information provides another major guidance. General

management people can make our system work as a simple tool for them. We must approach the

user (this includes those who should use but don't)

with the suggestion that management has given

him a tool to assure him that our laboratories supply the calibrations he needs for successful production. With this weapon at his command, we will

have his cooperation and have less trouble doing

the type of job we see as necessary. Production

department demands for more and better calibrations, coupled with good business practices in our

laboratories, should give us all the higher management support needed.

A Coordinated Data System

It has been noted that we require a data file on

every precision instrument and standard to maintain control. This historical file contains the usual

recalibration readings and repair activities along

with a precisely defined data-collection procedure.

This constitutes a carefully devised data system

which has produced information capable of being

statistically analyzed. The results of the data

analyses are returned to the original system to provide corrective adjustments. In other words the

data-collection frocedure for each instrument

must be in a true state of definable process control. This condition is mandatory before one can es- tablish if an instrument is m a state of control. I must point out that experience shows that many

laboratories only think they can produce valid answers, or calibrate within a definable range, or

really define the limits of the device they have

calibrated. It might shock you to know how much

we depend on well-known laboratories—who are giving us answers generated from conditions

which are not in a state of control. Another important factor is the statistical analysis of the data, and its subsequent end usage. The

overall problem is not simple and could deal with

such complexities as error-combining procedures.

However, less complex action can help most situations by looking at and defining individual parameters. Calibration parameters and intervals may

be adjusted and new control limits may be established thru proper use of the analyzed data. The

big point is, that most of us don't really know

what our true condition is, and therefore it can

not be defined or corrected.

Our laboratory uses a mixture of data collecting,

handling, and processing media. Special forms are used where the ease of data collection or the next

stage of processing may be facilitated, or human

error can be reduced. We use desk calculators,

small-scale computers, and large-scale computers

to operate upon technical and scientific data. Here we all must face some compromises. We can obtain

a small calculator at low initial cost, but we must

do most of the data processing with the calculator

handling one event at a time, and time is costly.

There is also a high error probability, due to the

human tendency to make mistakes. Computers

have high initial costs and require programming,

although once the program is written, costs per

activity drop markedly. Oh yes, we need to communicate with the programmer, and it takes him

time to develop a program. A possible approach to programming is to use a format which consists of

sub-routines which may be inserted into many

over-all programs without the cost of re-writing

them.

136
Conclusion

The previous paragraphs show a bias toward the

need for CONTEOL of technical and administrative data. The bias remains when suggesting some form of data processing. Developing definitely pre- scribed data systems will remove many of the ques- tionable technical and administrative conditions

which exist in most laiboratories. Statistical methods provide one of the more effective tools to obtain over-all control. A detailed description of our complete system, with twelve illustrations, is con- tained in an Appendix* which may help get you

started on a control system of your own.

* Available upon request to the NCSL secretariat, % National Bureau of Standards, Washington, B.C. 20234.

187
IS THERE A FIGURE OF MERIT FOR THE MEASUREMENT PROCESS?

Loebe Julie

President, Julie Research Laboratories, Inc., 211 West 61st Street, New York, New York 10000

This paper examines the hardware, software, and operator characteristics of a measur- ment facility and attempts to establish approximate value analysis guidelines for measure- ments as a system or process.

In the light of recent discussions of measure- ment "efficiency, effectivity, and productivity," it would be desirable to treat a measurement and

calibration laboratory as a machine or processor,

if by so doing we could apply quantitative measures and concepts, relating to efficiency, that are useful elsewhere. Let us then attempt to describe

such a measurement processor as follows

:

(1) Consider the entire process facility to en- compass all of the measurement plant, test apparatus, and other stationary equipment. Also part

of the processor are its personnel and its software

facilities, including procedures, routines, test forms and other standard documents.

(2) The facility described processes an input

work flow which consists of all devices submitted

for test, calibration and/or adjustment.

(3) The input work flow may be of varying

complexity ranging from components, sub-assemblies or instruments to complete systems.

(4) The work output consists of the submitted

devices after processing, which may include clas- sification into acceptable and rejected categories, or grading into many fine-structured classes of

performance, or complete detailed testing (and/or

adjustment) accompanied by software output in

the form of certificates, reports, graphs and other

data on device performance.

In spite of the fact that the measurement system

handles an extremely varied work flow, it does per- mit quantitative measures of performance or effi- ciency. Efficiency for a conventional production

process is characterized in terms of speed—quantity of work flow per hour of operator/machine

time—related to the production facility cost (including operator) expressed per hour of operator/

machine time. Efficiency evaluation for varied

production processes also takes into consideration the difi^erence in quality levels of work be- ing performed. Thus, there are different speed and

cost performance quotas tabulated for the different

quality levels of the process. This paper attempts

a tentative appraisal of the parameters of meas- urement in terms of process performance, and to

indicate definitions of work flow, speed, cost and

quality of measurement in enough detail to suggest

practical and useful concepts and guidelines for

the measurement manager.

Effective measurement speed "/S'"—In order to be usable in efficiency calculations, we must relate the definition of effective measurement speed to the

concept of total operator/machine time required

to achieve fully reliable, fully traceable^ and fully

reported measurements. Typically, large amounts

of process time are consumed in maintenance,

check measurements, data logging and data correction. Because of the considerable time spent not on

direct dial readings but on establishing the validity

of and correcting and reporting data, effective overall measurement speed is typically two to ten times lower than the speed of simple, direct, un- checked and unreported testing. Although the term

Speed is conversationally used m quantitative speed

comparisons, it is customary to give units of time

"7"' per measurement

8=1/

T

Direct test time —^the time required to make

a simple direct, test observation without checking

or reporting. Test time multiplier "il/"—total measurement

time divided by direct test time. This multiplier

increases measurement cost proportionately, usually by a large factor.

Effective worh-fiow rate "IT"—expressed as

| measurements performed or devices tested per hour j of operator/machine total time. W=l/7' Thus, TT ' and S are numerically identical. Facility cost rate "F"—related to the total pur1

chase cost of the facility, its depreciation and main- j tenance cost and the operator cost (depending on

skill grade) including training costs. Expressed!

per hour of total operator/machine time. i Measurement cost rate "6"'—the effective cost]

of making a measurement or testing a device.

138
Measurement accuracy "A"—this is perliaps the

most significant measure of measurement quality

and is widely used in an intuitive sense. It is not

easily defined and will be used here in terms of its inverse—total limit of error.

T.L.E'

Presumably, based on this small number of defi- nitions, we should be able to make simple performance, efficiency, or effectiveness comparisons be- tween systems.

To do so it is first necessary to chose a figure of

merit expression which weighs the various factors

in a way which makes sense for our particular sys- tem requirement.

/= function of {S, M, t, F)

For example, in cases where measurement backlog is overwhelming, measurement managers may

wish to maximize speed regardless of cost; or where budget restrictions are excessive, to minimize facility cost rate; or where overall department efficiency is the paramount consideration, to minimize measurement cost rate. In any case, those factors which are of maximum importance are given weight 1 and those of minimtun

importance are given minimum weight (approaching zero). The most difficult maximization problem is that of minimizing overall measurement cost

rate because this requires giving significant weight

to the three competing factors

F, M, t—and care- fully balancing system elements for maximum cost

effectiveness simultaneously.

An analysis of these three cost-rate factors shows

that they themselves are functions of many in- dividual equipment design factors which directly

affect measurement cost effectiveness. The effect and individual significance of these factors will be

discussed in the remainder of this paper.

a. Equipment Initial Cost. This factor is usually

considered as a major parameter of the buying decision. Most manufacturers provide a clear state- ment of the initial cost of their equipment.

b. Useful Life Including Prohahility of Design

Obsolescence. This represents a hidden part of

ecjuipment cost and is usually not specified by

either manufacturer or user in a very satisfactory

way. Since the real impact of equipment cost is on

a per year or rather on a per measurement-hour

basis, equipment cost is not known unless useful

life is accurately estimated. It is important to emphasize, since much calibration instrumentation

becomes unuseful because of design obsolescence

-ather than by wearing out, that considerable

t.hough should be given to the possibility that an

instrument of a particular design and at a particular accuracy limit will not be useful over en-;»ugh years.

c. Equipment Versatility (TJseability) . This is also a major factor of effective equipment cost be- cause of the very low use factor of most calibration

equipment. For example, a highly specialized piece

of equipment costing $5,000 and with a useful life of two years and with a usability of 100 hours per

year has an effective cost of $25 per hour of use. A slightly more expensive but more versatile

equipment costing $6,000 with a two-year useful

life and with a usability of 300 hours j)er year has an effective equipment cost of $10 per hour. The

second instruments has 2.5 times the cost effective- ness of the first because of its greater usability.

d. Cost of Accessory and Auxiliary Calibration

Equipment. This cost factor is usually not specified at the time of jDurchase, but may become painfully apparent at the end of the first calibration

interval for the test instrument. The information

is generally available as part of the manufacturer's

instruction book and it is not at all unusual to find

accessory and auxiliary equipment required for

calibration that is several times as expensive as the instrument itself. Thus, a very-low-cost instrument performing the same function as the instruments described in (c) might have an initial cost of $2,000, a useful life of two years and a useability of 100 hours per year with an effective cost of $10 per hour. However, this instrument might

also require $8,000 worth of auxiliary calibration

equipment of relatively low useability. If 10 per- cent of the cost of the auxiliary calibration equipment must be charged to the support of the test instrument, there is an additional $4.00 an hour of

cost for auxiliary calibration equipment. Labor

costs for calibration must be added to this. See

(h) and (i).

e. Cost of Installation, including Environment

Control. This measurement system cost factor is usually not itemized as part of the equipment ini- tial cost, although, like auxiliary calibration equipment cost, it can multiply effective cost many times.

Thus, equipment which has been designed for use

in carefully controlled environments may require

special air conditioning, special humidity and

other special environmental controls to operate

within specifications. Although such carefully controlled environments may be available at the time

new equipment is designed into an existing meas- urement system, this extra cost burden should not

be neglected. If installation cost and environment

control cost are considered in the initial stages of

the design of a measurement facility, equipments

may be selected all of which are relatively insensitive to environment. The savings achieved in plant

structure and control represent a permanent "edge"

in measurement cost effectiveness.

f. Equipment Accuracy. This refers to the abil- ity of the test equipment to deliver measurements

at various levels of quality. While some version of

accuracy is generally specified by the manufac3S2-(932 O—6© '10 139
turer, it is becoming increasingly difficult to determine the total limit of error. Where only error fragments or error statistics are given, it may be

necessary to do the work of a legal statistician in

order to determine equipment accuracy. Also, there

is frequently confusion about whether the accuracy

specified results from a direct reading or is that obtained after time-consuming operator corrections

for the "systematic" instrument errors. Since highest measurement efficiency requires thajt measure- ments be performed at high test speeds, measure- ment efficiency drops if operator correction of data

is needed.

Direct Test Speed. This refers to the time re- quired for a simple direct measurement or test without check measurements, traceability, data

correction or data logging. Large efficiency differences in direct test speed are possible between

different design classes of instruments, generally

as a function of detector response time and the

detector sensitivity to overload. Where high-speed

detectors are used which are insensitive to overload, a measurement can be made at the maximum

speed at which operator can turn dials. Thus, in a direct speed test between measurement system

A using a sensitive optical galvanometer and

measurement system B using a high-speed over- load-protected galvanometer of suitable design, a

six-dial measurement may require two minutes for

equipment A but only ten seconds for equipment

B—a range of 12 to 1. There may, however, be

significant differences in the additional operator

time required to verify the measurement. See (h)

and (i). h. Confidence Level., Reliability Verifiability.

These characteristics of measurement equipment

have a major influence on measurement efficiency

but are not usually specified in a useable quantitative way. Instruments which are outstanding per- mit personnel to function in highly confident

manner, spending maximum time on output meas- urements rather than on check measurements or data manipulations. Such certainty is highest for

optimally simple equipment which is direct reading without correction, easily self-calibrating with

fixed-point National Bureau of Standards references, maximally accurate and maximally stable. An outstanding example is an instrument like the

electronic frequency counter, which functions as an optimal ratio instrument (time is subdivided)

,

driven by a highly perfected and stable standardizeable source (crystal clock) and standardized

against a small number of National Bureau of

Standards frequency-standard reference points to

establish traceability.

i. Operating Costs {Lahor) for Correction., Restandardization., Recalihration^ Retrimming and

Maintenance. In evaluating equipments for meas- urement speed performance, total measurement

time must be determined. Total Measurement

Time, which we have already determined as the

product of Direct Test Time and Test Time Multiplier, may also be considered as the sum of Direct Test Time and Parasitic Time. The Test Time

Multiplier may vary from slightly more than 1, for high certainty instruments, to 10 or more for

high parasitic-time instruments requiring frequent

correction, restandardization, retrimming, recali- bration or other maintenance. There is a wide variation between instruments otherwise equal in

performance with respect to the ratio of operator

time spent on direct test to time spent on instrument restandardization and checking. The effect

is that of many small items and is cumulative. As

a minor example, in precise potentiometric work

an instrument designed to use storage batteries

and without independent standardizing dials may

require two minutes out of every ten to be spent on restandardizing working current, whereas a

better designed potentiometer may need only one

restandardization per day, taking only 30 seconds.

Obviously, with regard to this one minor parasitic

factor alone, output efficiency would be 20 percent

higher for the latter instrument.

j. Direct and Indirect Cost of Periodic Outside

Recertification. Traceability of the measurement

process requires periodic validation back to National Bureau of Standards reference levels of ac- curacy. Many classes of measurement instruments

are recertified by direct submission of the entire

instrument to a higher echelon laboratory. An in- strument with 100 hours of useability and costing

$150 for the annual recertification fee and $50 for

handling charges has an additional direct cost of

$2 an hour for recertification. In addition, if the

instrument is out of operation for such mainte- nance for two months out of every year, this 16%

downtime represents an extra indirect cost. It should be noted that an even more serious in- direct cost is sometimes incurred when additional

back-up instrumentation must be purchased and

maintained in order to do the job of this instrument while it is being recertified. Under such conditions, excess measurement cost can exceed 100%.

This problem has been attacked by the design

of classes of instruments which use ratio techniques in an optimal way to permit simple, fast and completely autonomous recertification of in- struments by the operator. In such ratio-type ^stems, National Bureau of Standards calibration

of a laboratory's basic standards (frequency, re- sistance, voltage) is often sufficient to establish

traceability of measurements. Instrument recerti- fication costs, instrument downtime and instrument duplication are all eliminated.

k. Operator Prerequisite Technical Education;

1. Additional Travning Time Required for

Operators; m. Availability and Cost of Continuing Education and Training Programs for Operators.

The effective hourly labor cost of measurement

is highly variable, depending on the skill class of

the operator or operators required and on the in- vestment in specialized training required to make

140
and keep them competent in the use of the meas- urement equipment. Where measurement equipment requires highly skilled operators for operation or maintenance, there is a danger not only

of excessive measurement cost but of a partial or complete shutdown of the measurement process in

the event of continued personnel shortages or excessive personnel turnover. Assuming a situation of medium shortages

where operators are available for training but

must turn over their instrument assignments on

the average of once a year, there may be a signifi- cant difference in cost between two classes of equipment. If four weeks of training is required on

equipment A, which has only 100 hours per year

of useability, as opposed to one week on more versatile equipment B, which has 200 hours per year

of useability, equipment A has an excess operator

training cost of 160% whereas equipment B has an excess operator training cost of 20%. In addition, if equipment A requires an operator with two

years more of college or technical education than

equipment B, there may also be an hourly rate cost

differential of more than twenty percent.

n. Availability of Suitable Class of Operators

to Undergo Training. The rapid growth of meas- urements has led to the development of an educational gap in measurements and to a general shortage of trained or trainable measurement operators.

Even if materials and training programs are made

available for the training of operators on classes of equipment, there may be no practical or eco- nomical way in which to keep the measurement

process going if student operators of requisite

quality and background are not available to enter

training. Recognition of this serious problem has

led to the design and use of simpler "everyman"

types of measurement equipment so that process

continuation can be guaranteed under the worst

conditions of personnel shortage.

A more recent attack on the growing operator

shortage problem has been by the addition of au- tomatability features to measurement instrumentation in order to simplify and save labor (See

o. Availability and Cost of Materials Required

for Continued Use of Equipment; and

p. Availability and Cost of Valid Operating

Procedures.

There may be appreciable cost differences between two designs of measurement systems depending on the cost of materials required for con- tinued operation and the availability of pre- fabricated and simple, fast and efficient operating

procedures. Operating procedures may represent

a very significant cost item if efficient ones are not

available cheaply. For example, if an equipment

with 100 hours of useability and a useful life of

two years requires two weeks per year of operator

time for generating, debugging and documenting

its test procedures, this represents an extra labor

cost of 40 percent. To this should be added extra

costs for production and publication of the

procedures.

q. Appearance. This is the only factor that has no direct connection with measurement efficiency.

However, attractive appearance of a facility is used in "selling" measurement service to prospective customers who stress appearance as opposed

to performance as a figure- of-merit.

r. AutomataMlity. As in other processes

manufacturing, for example, or clerical jDaperwork

processes—^the measurement process may soon

reach the point where workload volume quotas,

workload variety, or unit cost quotas may go beyond the limits that can be reached, even with the

highest figure-of-merit manual operations, by

skilled operators, or where such operators are not

available in sufficient numbers for the given

workload.

During the transition from a manual to an auto- matic or semi-automatic measurement era, the

most efficient measurement facility will be one that

is optimal in the manual mode and that is adapted

for early, gradual conversion to semi-automatic

and automatic operation.

Automatic features which may be considered

are:

1. Data Logging

2. Data Storage

3. Data Playback

4. Programmed Testing

6. Computer Analysis

6. Computer Control

7. Automatic Balancing.

It certainly is too early for measurement superautomation incorporating all of the above because

of technical problems, because of the size of the

investment that would be required, and because

of the practical questions that must be raised

about the reliability and maintainability of the

automation devices themselves. Some automation

is technically and economically practical for consideration at this time and should be discussed

briefly.

Data logging is presently feasible for automatic

entry of data to printed tape or typed documents,

eliminating time-consuming manual writing and

transcribing of numbers by the operator. Simultaneously, the data may be entered and stored on punched tape or cards. Once stored, such data may

be played back automatically to the test dials of

a suitably designed measurement instrument,

eliminating large amounts of operator dial setting

time doing repetitive programmed tests of components or instruments. Also, once stored, the data can be played automatically from tape or cards

into a standard computer for correction, averaging, determination of standard deviations or for even more sophisticated analysis and automatic

printout of data, graphs and reports.

Conversion of a measurement facility to auto- mation may be attempted on an instrument-by141
instrument basis. This, however, leads to duplicacation of expensive interface and input/output

data processing devices so that the cost of such an approach to automation may reacli astronomical proportions. In addition, once such a facility

is established, the training, calibration and maintenance burden of such large numbers of specialized machines may raise rather than lower

manpower costs. An opposite approach to the development of an automated facility is through the design of a large

single automatic machine for measurements some- what along the lines of the giant super-computers

now in use. This is also extremely expensive approach and may be equally impractical from a

technical, operational, training and maintenance

point of view. Thus, in converting to automatic

measurement, careful evaluation of all the cost, performance and maintenance factors must be

made to avoid alternatives which may prove to be

excessively expensive or unproductive.

Summary

Measurement equipment, facilities, and procedures have been examined as part of a work-flow

system or process and many factors of the process

figure-of-merit have been examined.

The quality and quantity of measurement work

performed is describable in terms of elementary

definitions of accuracy^ speed, direct test time, test time multiplier, effective work-flow rate, facility cost rate and measurement cost rate. Any of these

factors or a suitable combination of them can be

used to give a quantitative figure-of-merit for

measurement process efficiency.

Eighteen equipment figure-of-merit factors

have been listed and their influence on measure- ment process performance and cost effectiveness

discussed.

Conclusions

By applying process efficiency concepts to meas- urement performance, it is possible to see where

changes in facilities and procedures will improve

accuracy, speed, output and efficiency and lower

costs. Most of the factors responsible for low process

efficiency have to do with low equipment or pro- cedure accuracy, low effective speed, low equipment versatility, and high effective equipment

cost.

Effective equipment costs are many times higher

than initial costs because of hidden installation,

operation, training and maintenance costs. Effective equipment costs are also unnecessarily

high because of specialized design which decreases

usability, and premature obsolescence as a result of accuracy or speed limitations or nonadaptability to changing workload requirements.

Low process efficiency can also be related to the

low ration of effective operator test time to total time.

In the same way that production processes have

been made more efficient by providing operators

with more efficient equipment and procedures,

there is a possibility for a 2 to 10 times improvement in measurement process efficiency by similar

improvements.

Process improvements can be evaluated quantitatively. A study is available which shows a figure-of-merit analysis for measurement speed and

measurement accuracy versus measurement cost and evaluates the effect of improvements in those

factors on overall measurement efficiency.^

Efficiency can be raised significantly if many

time-consuming and repetitive parasitic operations now being performed can be simplified or eliminated, and if unnecessary investment in specialized (low useability) or high-maintenance

machines—that is those with a large burden of

of installation, recalibration, restandardization, re- trimming correction, recertification and obsoles- cence costs—are eliminated.

In the same way that production processes have

been made more efficient by providing operators

with practical labor-saving devices, it may be desirable to make a major improvement in measure- ment process efficiency by doing mechanically

those many time-consuming and repetitive operations now done manually.

Automatable precision measurement equipment

may be added to the measurement process in order

to make it possible to adapt existing standard

computer and automatic data processing hardware

for mechanization of the routine repetitive parts

of the measurement process. By so doing, there can be a gradual reduction in the present burden on the operator of manual entry of test results,

manual setting of instrument dials to predetermined values, and manual manipulation of raw

data to correct and convert it in a form suitable

for final test reports.

1 "A Proposed Value Analysis for Measurements," Notes on

the Julie Ratiometie Method of Measurement, pp. 16-19.

142
TOTAL INSTRUMENT CONTROL

L. M. Auxier and L. A. Micco

Beckman Instruments, Inc. Fullerton, California The maxlinum utilization of capital goods is used, as a technique to control the purchase, use, and retirement of instruments. This responsibility has been assigned to the Corporate Reliability Engineering Department, which performs these functions through

its Instrument Library. A description of the operation, including a manual Porta-Puneh

system for controlling the loan of instruments, will be presented ; and a review of the growth and costs associated with this program also will be given.

Discussion

The concept of maximum utilization of com- pany assets is not new. Industrial engineers have

attempted to minimize capital expenditures for

tools, molds and machines for many years. Added

impetus was given this cost-saving method after

War War II when commercial markets began to expand rapidly. At first, large sums of capital

monies were spent to modernize and expand facilities to meet the ever growing demands of the econ- omy. However, as this phase peaked out, and it became evident that economies must be effected, the

idea of maximum utilization of existing facilities and resources became more appealing to management. This technique has proven to be one of the

best methods for controlling capital spending

without materially restraining the requirements

of the operating divisions. Although this may

sound like a paradox, believe me, it is not. However, it does require careful planning and central

control of capital spending, plus availability and

maintenance of a good stock of popular items.

These must be coupled with a frequent physical

inventory. The inventory is necessary to locate

bootlegged or lost items, to permit quick retire- ment of instrunients which require excessive repair,

and to obtain information concerning change in

emphasis of items being used. Above all, this program requires the backing of top management and

an effective organization to implement it. The re- sult is control of capital goods from the cradle

to the grave.

This maximum utilization technique was first initiated at Beckman over ten years ago. The initial area attacked was that of machine tools, jigs, and

fixtures. All capital items in the Corporation were

brought under the cognizance of the Vice President of Manufacturing and under the direct re- sponsibility of the Corporate Director of Industrial Engineering.

About this time, the question was asked, as I am

sure it has been asked many times before and

since, "How can we better utilize the electronic

instruments which are beginning to pile up in our

inventories? Why does every engineer and technician want his own pet instrument and refuse to share it with his neighbor?" The Beckman Instru- ment Library grew from an analysis of these and

similar questions—it is a department devoted to the total control and maximum utilization of elec- tronic instruments.

Before I proceed further, let me say that this

system could not have been initiated without the

whole-hearted support of management from the

top down to the line supervisors. Nor could it have

been successful without the proper attitude on

the part of the people involved in the Instrument

Library, as well as the confidence placed in these

people by the personnel in the departments using

the service.

Before detailing the operation of the Instrument

Library, an outline of the structure and responsibilities of this group is in order. One year prior to the initiation of the Instrument Library, a Reliability Engineering Department had been formed

at the Corporate level to evaluate components and

instruments of the various Beckman Divisions before they were released to Production. Since cali- brated test instruments are vital to the development and production of reliable instruments, it was decided that the Instrument Library would

be associated with this Corporate Department. It has remained in this Department ever since. The responsibilities which were initially as- signed to the Instrument Library, as well as those

subsequently assumed by the group, are as follows

1. Assemble, evaluate, and formulate a yearly

capital appropriations budget, covering the in- strument requirements for all the Fullerton

Divisions.

143
2. Audit and implement the procedure for the

purchase of items of the capital appropriations

budget throughout the year.

3. Advise Corporate Industrial Engineering of

the availability of instruments in surplus, the advisability of purchasing certain instrument types

for standardization purposes, and whether or not

a divisional instrument purchase request should come under the control of the Instrument Library.

4. Operate a loan-pool service for the benefit

of the Divisions located at Fullerton. Make available, to outlying Divisions, instruments for shortterm loan; these usually are special-purpose

instruments.

5. Maintain a facility capable of calibrating as many instrument types as is economically feasible,

including an efficient recall system for these

instruments.

6. In conjunction with the preceeding responsibility (#5), conduct a maintenace program to ensure reliable operation of the instruments between calibration periods.

7. As a matter of expediency and better control, operate an electrical metrology laboratory

as an integral part of the Instrument Library.

8. Make available to the Fullerton Divisions a mechanical calibration facility. (Accomplished

just during the past year, with the installation of a laminar-flow semi-clean room.)

9. Supervise a surplus pool of instruments for

the entire Corporation, receiving units declared

surplus by any and all Divisions.

10. Actively audit the reliability of the instruments in the loan pool. When data dictate, initiate a retirement proposal to remove defective, obsolete and/or little-used equipment from the Corporate files. 11. Conduct an inventory of all electrical test instruments in the Fullerton location in conjunction with the Corporate inventory conducted every

four years. When the Instrument Library was chartered,

it was required to have a balanced budget. This was accomplished by placing a rental fee on the

instruments borrowed. This fee reflects the de- preciation of the instrument, the cost of calibration, and an estimated cost for maintenance. The

revenue obtained from these rentals was added to the money received for calibration and mainte- nance of instruments not owned by the Instrument

Library, for mechanical repair and calibration,

and for primary calibration. The total income es- sentially balances the cost of the operation which

includes salaries, rent for space, depreciation of

instruments, and cost of parts. This type of funding has proved more equitable than any type of

allocation back to the Divisions.

Until just recently, the procedure for recall of

instruments, for the checkout of instruments, and

for the billing of charges, was performed manually. Forms were developed for this purpose and

data were reduced monthly on a hand calculator.

It was not practical to computerize for the few

thousand instruments involved. It still isn't. However, with the help of the Corporate Data Process- ing Department, a "Manual/Computer System" was developed. All information associated with

the instrument is stored in a 360 computer disc. This bank of data forms the basis for the recall system. The heart of the system is the IBM PortaPunch. All pertinent data for an instrument

transaction is punched manually and simultaneously into two identical cards. One is filed in the

Instrument Library while the other is sent to the

computer to up-date the location information in

the computer disc. When the instrument is re- turned, the filed card is punched with the return

date, and sent to the computer. The computer

stores information from all transaction cards until

the 20th of the month, when it summarizes the

charges by departments. For repair and calibration services performed on instruments not belonging to the Instrument Library, a single card is punched. This card also is used to document

charges for supplies (such as chart paper) which

are purchased through these facilities. The total charges for each department are printed out by

the computer and forwarded to Corporate Accounting at the end of each month.

The present Instrument Library group includes a supervisor who is a measurement standards engineer, a clerk-typist, two expeditors to pick up

and deliver instruments, four technicians, including a lead man performing secondary calibrations

and maintenance on instruments, a mechanical

metrologist, a mechanical technician, and an elec- tronic metrologist, who assists in the calibration

and maintenance when he is not performing primary electrical calibrations.

The inventory of instruments in the loan pool

is presently at 3,000 (2,000 of which are on cali- bration), and an additional 1,000 are calibrated

and maintained for other departments. Mechanical calibrations are performed on 1,000 devices.

Electrical certifications are issued on 325 instru- ments. An indication of the volume of instruments

handled is given by the total transactions con- ducted per month—currently 600. This figure in- cludes only the pickup and return of rentals. There are also 2,000 instruments which are considered "permanent" loan, i.e., they have been

loaned to the same individvial for more than six

months. Adding to these rentals the income from

work performed on instruments owned by other

departments, the operation currently grosses approximately $30,000 per month.

It is interesting to see the growth of the facility over the past seven years (fig. 1) . The graph shows

the increase in total instruments being controlled

and calibrated by this group, the average cost of

maintaining an instrument per year (without

labor, which gives an indication of the improvement in the instruments under the maintenance

144
program) and the total man-months expended in

the operation. The cross-hatched part of the bar

graph includes times of personnel actively working on the calibration and maintenance program

while the clear portion indicates the time spent

on the nontechnical functions, such as pickup, delivery, and filing. Although this analysis is by

no means complete, it has been used effectively by

management as a guide to the cost and efficiency

of the operation.

59-60 60-61 61-62 62-63 63-6it 64-65 65-66 66-67 67-

fiscal year Figure 1.

145
MANAGEMENT MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES FOR CALIBRATION

LABORATORIES

E. J. Arsenault

General Electric Company, Re-Entry Systems, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104

Introduction

For years, management has applied the terms

productivity, efficiency, effectiveness, and unit cost to assist them in the operation of their depart- ments. Great success has been obtained by organizations dealing with high volume products for

the consumer market. Standards have been estab- lished that can be employed by many companies

to evaluate their own product line against that of

their competitors. When these measurements are applied to* complex technical activities such as that in a calibration laboratory, serious difficulties are encountered. The usual production standards

cannot be used. Furthermore, there is a reluctance on the part of technical personnel to develop techniques that could rate them on such things as

efficiency, productivity, etc. Technical programs must be managed and eval- uated against some form of standards. The failure

of management to recognize this can result in a high-cost operation, with no way of assessing the

value of the program. A calibration program had

been established in 1957 at Ee-Entry Systems. In

1962, the program was reviewed to evaluate its contribution to the department. It became apparent that, because there was a lack of established

standards, a management evaluation was impossible. The program had been in opertion for five years, and yet there was no way to answer these

basic questions

:

• Are the laboratories operating at a high effi- ciency ? • Is the quality level in the calibration program improving, or what level is being maintained ? • Do the laboratories operate at the same or

better efficiency Avith the advent of newer, more

complex equipment ? • What are the factors which influence the

quality and reliability of a calibration program?

• How much analysis of the data obtained is being utilized ? A comprehensive program was established to achieve the following objectives

:

• Establish a data analysis system to obtain

maximum value for the calibration program.

• Develop measurement criteria.

• Identify standards to be maintained for a

calibration program.

• Compare costs against other internal as well

as external laboratories providing the same service.This report describes that program and some

of the experience gained in its application at ReEntry Systems. We believe we have achieved the

following results

:

1. Measurements of efficiency, productivity,

effectiveness, economical limits, and the level of

quality have been successfully applied for the

past four years.

2. Standards have been established for all measurements, and for each type of calibration

laboratory.

3. Effective programs for optimum calibration

intervals and equipment replacement have been

instituted.

After the experience of the past five years, we

conclude that

:

1. Laboratories of various technical disciplines can be measured and evaluated equitably through

the establishment of a complexity rating system.

2. Operational failures and maintenance costs are the greatest contributing factors for low effi- ciency in operation of a calibration laboratory.

3. Cost per unit of productivity is an accurate measurement of operational cost for a calibration

program.

Productivity

The standard employed to measure productivity in most laboratories is usually the number of

instruments calibrated over a period of time. Although this old stand-by provides a representation

of productivity, it has become greatly diluted with

the advent of more sophisticated instrumentation.

Really, to begin to define the true product of a

laboratory, manager must first identifiy what he

actually produces. Analysis will reveal that the

only tangible evidence of laboratory productivity

is its calibration record. Therefore, the true product of a laboratory is calibration data. Everyone agrees that the difference between in- struments is in their technical complexity. Calibrating a voltmeter, as compared to an oscillo- scope, which is a great deal more complex and

146
requires a higher level of technical personnel and

equipment to calibrate, cannot be given the same

productivity rating. To develop a measurement

of productivity requires that a criteria be established for the complexity rating of all instruments

serviced. Some of the elements to consider in this

complexity rating are

• Technical level of personnel required • Type and number of standards required for

calibration capabilities ( a fixed installation versus one that has to have a special lash-up) • Extent of calibration procedures • Number of data points obtained • Normal or average time expected to perform

calibration

The system for establishing the complexity rat- ing should be kept simple. At Re-Entry Systems,

ratings of 3, 10, 20, 30, and 50 have been assigned.

A micrometer is rated a 3 and an oscilloscope is given a 50, for example. A rather complete list of

complexity ratings is given in Appendix C.

Since calibration data is the true product of the

laboratories, the unit of complexity should then

be related to that. Re-Entry Systems has established the Unit of Calibration Data (UCD) as the

simplest unit of productivity, and one unit of complexity would be equivalent to one UCD.

Efficiency

Efficiency is assumed proportional to productivity per hour (UCD/hr). We must then establish

a reference point for average output. We will as- sume tht average output is equivalent to 50 percent

efficiency, and then assume a straight-line relation

between them, as in figure 1. At Re-Entry Systems, we set 10 UDC's per hour = 50 percent efficiency.

Assuming total productivity of 10,450 UCD and a

total calibration time of 940 hours, we get 11.1 UCD/hr, and proportionally 50 X 11.1/10 = 56 per- cent overall efficiency.

Caution should be exercised and a well-known

average of productivity determined before establishing average efficiency rating as 50 percent.

Effectiveness

Effectiveness is defined as the ratio of actual

time expended to the potential time available. Suppose a technician is assigned 40 hours a week to perform calibration, and a review of calibration

records submitted by him indicates that a total of

32 hours has been accounted for. The ratio 32/40 =

80 percent etfectiveness. This technique can be administered if a laboratory records its labor time

through a voucher system.

Maintenance Productivity

We have discussed how to measure the productivity of calibration effort. However, when applying this technique to the maintenance area, we enCALIBRATION EFFICIENCY VS. PRODUCTIVITY R4TE /HR

7 18 19 20

Fig. 1. Assigned relation of efficiency to UCD's per hour.

counter a problem which is unique. First of all, maintenance must be separated from calibration.

If not, it will seriously affect the validity of the

calibration productivity measurement. Since maintenance cannot be accurately predicted, there is a temptation to establish an average UCD/hr. However, a flat rate camiot be established as this would

not take into account efficiency. Our approach has

been to assume that the technician's productivity,

efficiency, and effectiveness in maintenance effort is the same as that applied to calibration. For ex- ample : an oscilloscope has a complexity rating of

50 UCD's, and a technician required 3 hours to calibrate the instrument. In addition, he applied

2 hours to maintenance. What is his productivity ? Calibration productivity rate per hour equals total UCD's per calibration total hours= 50/3 = 16.6 UCD/hr. (This is equivalent to an efficiency rat- ing of 83 percent). Maintenance i^roductivity

would then be 16.6X2=33 UCD, and total productivity =50 +33 =83 UCD.

Operational Costs

The definition of operational cost is the labor

and material expended to produce a product, plus

operational overhead expenses. Since the product

of a calibration laboratory is data, represented by

the UCD as the unit of productivity. Therefore,

the cost/UCD can serve as an excellent measure

of the operational costs of a calibration program

Cost of operation + profit _

Productivity in UCD Cost/UCD.

If for a period of one month, productivity was

3500 UCD's, and the cost of operation was $3,255,

then $3,255/3500= $0.93/UCD. (Most calibration

laborajtories have a parent operation, so that a

profit is usually omitted in calculating the cost of

operation.)

The breadth of definition of operational charges

is the key to obtaining an accurate cost/UCD. The

best suggestion is to be as factual as possible in list- ing all overheads. Plotting the cost/UCD along

M7
.50

.40 Economical Limits

1965 1964 1965 1966 1967- QUARTERS

Fig. 2. History of productivity and costs.

with the productivity level, as in figure 2, will provide a management tool which measures the cost of

operation regardless of the changes in the levels of

productivity.

Optimum Calibration Cycles

Our study has shown that calibration intervals are the outstanding factor which influences manpower, capability, facilities, cost of operation, even

the extent of an organization's inventory. The

whole calibration program revolves about this

cycle ; it controls the level of quality and the total

cost. Open up the average calibration interval by

10 percent, and manpower, operating costs, facilities, etc. (assuming the inventory constant) will

drop accordingly. Close the calibration cycle by

the same degree, and costs will go up.

It is most important to establish some reference

for the assignment of calibration intervals for

each family of instruments. In the past, many cal- ibration cycles were established based on tradition.

Consideration must be given to determine effect of

age, use, and other which may cause deterioration to quality. The techniques employed by the

Standards and Calibration Laboratories is based on a statistical probability approach developed

in 1964. A very simple system of calculation is used, using the recorded average failure rate ( fail- ure per item per year, or FIY) for any group

of (say 25) instruments with data available for

a year or more. Constants derived from a Poisson

distribution table for confidence levels of 99, 95,

90 and 85 percent are multiplied by a known FIY

to determine a mean demand rate (MDR) i.e. the

expected demand for calibration (or maintenance)

service, in pieces per year. Normally, the Standards

and Calibration Laboratories have striven to maintain a confidence level of 85 to 95 percent. The

value for an optimum calibration cycle in months

is the quotient 12/MDR, and a plot of such values

is shown in figure 3. As long as the FIY does not

alter significantly, we can assume we are operating on the optimum curve.

The problem of identifying the economical limits of servicing by the calibration laboratory has

always been a challenge to management. The lab- oratory is concerned with the cost of maintaining an instrument. The user's views are more con- cerned with employing equipment which has the

greatest depenability and will encounter minimum

down-time. Both these requirements must be met,

and quality and reliability have been established

as the measurement parameters for economical

limit. The prime requisite to this measurement is a standard definition for both quality failures and

reliability failures, such as the one employed by

Re-Entry Systems (Appendix B). The next step

is to select a level of confidence adequate to maintain quality and reliability. In figure 3, it will be

noted that the optimum calibration cycle differs very little for confidence levels from 90 to 99

percent.

FAILURE RATE VS CALI BRATION CYCLE FOR VARIOUS CONFIDENCE LEVELS

0 r—

.

AVERAGE FAILURE RATE/YEAR

Fig. 3. Optimum calibration cycle based on average failure

rate, at various confidence levels.

In figure 4, the 95 percent curve of figure 3

appears with the legend "Quality Level." Its terminus at about 3 months sets the economical

limit for supplying calibration/maintenance service on any group of instruments having a quality

failure rate as high as one per year. A smiilar

(dashed) curve shows about one month as the ec- onomical limit for a group having a reliability

failure rate as high as two per year. Employing this technique, along with several

years of experience, enabled the Standards and

Calibration Laboratories to establish the following economical/limits to continued servicing of

a family of instruments

:

• One quality failure per year • Two reliability failures per year • A combination of quality and reliability fail- ures exceeding 3.

148
QUALITY LEVEL

OPERATIONAL FAILURE RATE LIMIT

QUALITY FAILURE RATE LIMIT

ECONOMICAL LIMIT

RELIABILITY LEVEL

16 14 12 10 8 C/M SERVICE - MONTHS

Fig. 4. Economical limit of calibration and maintenance

interval based on quality level and reliability level.

The last action was to limit labor and material

expenditures to 25 percent of the first cost value

of any instrument. No repairs were permitted

until investigations were completed to determine

the real need for such expenditures. When approval was obtained to perform repairs, the ex- pense funding was considered to be a capital

investment and was so treated.

"Quality-Rating" of a Calibration

Program

An important management tool is to be able

to adequately rate the "quality" of a calibration

program. This must be accomplished for not only

monitoring the level of quality, but to identify

which parameters are causing the greatest effect. First, the establishment of the parameters to be measured is required. Those selected are the

ones which most affect the quality of the program.

At Re-Entery System, the following parameters

have been established

Measured

Quantity

Quality

Reliability

Control

Parameter Monitored

Quality failures of instrument family

Operational failures of instrument

family Instruments received "over-due" for

calibration (by 60 days)

The percentage of over-due calibration instruments was computed as follows for instruments

which were found to be still in specification, and

plotted as in figure 5

"Q"= Quality raiing in percent=100 Y/X

X=Number of instruments (total serviced)

Y=Number of instruments in specs on schedule

A variation of this can be applied to compute a Zero Defects rating (fig. 5) : Z D percent=100 (A-KB+C)/(X-h Y)

QUALITY FAILURES 100 -

»e -

RELIABILITY FAILURES

13 60 o

O 40

Fig. 5. Quality rating and zero-defects rating on calibra- tion program.

A=Number of instruments out of specs

B = Number of instruments over-due calibration

C=Number of instruments having operational

failures

Note that if all defects are eliminated, then the

numerator becomes zero and the defects rating is 0 percent, and if all instruments have defects, the

defects rating is 100 percent. In either technique,

all five parameters are monitored to allow determination of those most influential.

Application Results

The UCD as a unit of productivity has been

employed very successfully to measure output

among technicians, regardless of the area of cali- bration in which they work. The results (see fig. 6 covering 21 technicians for a six-month period)

indicate that a top-grade technician can consistently operate at Y5 percent efficiency in electronic

calibration. In a dimensional laboratory the av- erage technician operates at 35 percent efficiency.

First reaction might be that the rating is not

equitable between electronic and dimensional

areas. However, note that in the dimensional laboratory the amount of administrative work rela- tive to actual calibration work is proportionately

higher.

An interesting comparison is that of productivity and efficiency in the Standards Laboratory and

the Calibration Laboratory. With similar equipment the Calibration Laboratory performs at 65

percent efficiency, while the Standards Laboratory

operates at 50 percent. Consider that the Standards

Laboratory is not high-volume oriented, and usually has to make a complete new set-up prior to performing a job. Because of the higher order of

accuracy, consideration of environmental conditions, stability of readings, calculation of data, etc. that are required, they are necessarily less efficient than the Calibration Laboratory.

149
Average effectiveness of our technicians ranged

between 65 and 85 percent. Investigation revealed

that the lower effectiveness ratings were due to handling unique or special jobs which were unscheduled and required much preparation without

any advance notice. A lack of good documentation

of time of the technicians was a problem. It was

necessary to establish separate job numbers for

miscellaneous tasks performed by technicians

(clean-up, filing, sorting, spare parts, etc.) in order

to accurately record calibration labor.

One of the most interesting trend indicators is the cost per unit of productivity (fig. 2). In 1963,

the laboratories output averaged 34,200 UCD's/

month at an operating cost of $0.78/UCD. In

1964, an increase in productivity by 12 percent was

accomplished which reduced cost/UCD by 5 percent. A major contribution to this improvement

was the Selected Calibration Program (SCP)

which was established. SCP allowed only instruments which were "clean," not "dogs," to be processed. Since this was accomplished during austere

times, manpower was numerically low but consisted of the most experienced technicians. The

result was high productivity per hour at minimum

cost. The following year, a further increase in

productivity of 8 percent was obtained; however,

the cost/UCD increased by 20 percent. Analysis

revealed that with increased expenses for material, contract services, and additional non-productive

personnel (engineers, clerks, supervisors) effec- tiveness dropped, especially while new personnel were being trained by experienced technicians. A

44 percent increase in maintenance services was

caused by the elimination of SCP. The laboratory was now servicing any and all instruments and

therefore were encountering more "dogs." Over

the same period, an increase of overtime also con- tributed to the increased cost of productivity.

Productivity and efficiency measurements were compared among technicians. Additional measure- ments of maintenance and set-up time were inSTANDAROS AND CALIBRATION LABORATORIES

EFFECTIVENESS AND COMPLEXITY

LAST HALF 1963

.X\V\- UCD's

•J r< E' ^ r !^ kg

16 21 22 24 27 29 31 33 34 35 37

eluded. After three years of monitoring data, the

several laboratories established the averages in- dicated below (fig. 6).

Standards

Laboratory

50%

10 UCD

5%

15%

85%

Electronic Calibration Laboratory

65%

13 UCD

20%

10%

75%

Dimensional

Laboratory

35%

7 UCD

0.5%

95%

Fig. 6. Comparison of effectiveness of technicians in Standards Laboratory. Electronic Calibration Laboratory, and Dimensional Laboratory.

Efficiency

Productivity

Rate/Hr

Maintenance

Set-up Time

Effectiveness These averages represent a reliable standard

to rate both technicians and individual laboratories. Whenever possible, the calibration interval is established with a confidence level of 95 percent.

The average failure rate of a family of instruments is monitored monthly. Should this figure

exceed one, then a detailed investigation is con- ducted to determine the cause of this increase.

Experience has shown us that the increase in

failure rate of any family is due to only 15 to 25

percent of the instruments within that family, but

accounts for 40 to 60 percent of the failures. Further evaluation positively shows that through re- placement of this minority group, average failure rate of the entire family will be lowered to such an extent that the optimum calibration cycle can

be increased by 25 to 50 percent.

The program for optimum calibration cycles was developed in 1964 by the Standards and Calibration Laboratories. Since the inception of this

program, we have gained sufficient experience to recognize that when quality failure averages ex- ceed one per year, regardless of the desired confidence level, the cost is prohibitively high compared to the small gains in quality shown in figure

3. Up to now, we have identified the desired quality level of our test equipment; however, no at- tempt has been made to identify the reliability

level. Since 1964, we have monitored the trend of

operational test equipment failures in lie-Entry

Systems. This trend has increased from a base of

13 percent in 1964 to a rate of 18 percent (figure

5). If we consider that the number of instruments

serviced by the laboratories in 1966 as compared

to 1964 has increased by 52 percent, the rise in operational failures takes on even further

significance.

Because of this trend, it became necessary to es- tablish an optimum curve for reliability. Since the

Poisson distribution table of Appendix A was

really composed of constants for the reliability of

electronic components, we employed the same techniques for a reliability cui-ve as we had for a quality curve. Again, relying on the experience we had

gained over the past few years, we established a

reliability failure rate of 2 per year as a limit that

any family or individual instrument should

encounter. The last consideration for economical limitation was the combination of quality and reliability fail150
ures. This limitation was established by selecting

points on the quality and reliability curve at which

the slope became relatively steep. The reliability

and quality curves are presented in figure 4, and a compromise economical limit is marked.

Our initial experience with applying this statistical technique for calibration intervals, revealed

that we had an unbalanced distribution of quality

in the calibration program. There were a large

number of instruments which were being "over"

calibrated and a substantial number "under" cali- brated. This unbalanced distribution of quality was corrected by proper adjustments in calibration

intervals based on data from the previous two

years. The overall average calibration cycle in- creased 11 percent without any increase in cost of

operation.

A concentrated effort was applied to the families

of instruments which exhibited higher Q & II fail- ure rates. The results of this effort produced an equipment replacement program designed to re- move individual instruments which had been

identified as exceeding economical limits. This was

administered by placing these items on their own

calibration cycle. Continued applications of these

techniques have produced an average calibration

interval 23 percent longer than existed prior to the adoption of this program. Most important, the

level of quality maintained on instruments has

been improved. A good example of "over" calibrating was in the dimensional area : after four years

of statistical analysis, the present average of cali- bration intervals is 40 percent longer than it was.

It is now standard procedure that any instrument

which has quality and reliability failures above

limits for two years in a row is automatically

placed on the replacement list. Many companies have established calibration

programs to meet the requirements of military

specifications. These programs represent a substantial initial investment as well as a considerable

amount of money to maintain. A technique for

management to evaluate performance becomes a

necessity.

The "Q"-rating for a calibration program has

been in existence for the past three years at ReEntry Systems. Figure 5 displays a 2-year record.

The rating is monitored monthly, and semi-annual

reports are issued to higher management. The re- ports identify the areas which must be emphasized

to improve the effectiveness of the calibration program. The present goal for Re-Entry Systems is to obtain an average "Q"-rating of 80 percent. To

achieve this, quality and reliability failures of less than 15 percent must, be maintained while the

"over-due" instruments must be less than 5 percent.

This, in turn, requires that the equipment replacement program has to be 90 percent effective so as

to eliminate instruments exceeding economical

limits from the active listing.

Summary

The use of the measurements described has supplied management with sufficient information to determine when any deviations from established

standards occur. The cost of maintaining this sys- tem is minimal, and only during initial set-up are any substantial costs encountered. These measure- ments should be implemented for a period of at

least one year prior to any attempt to establish

standards.

Experience has shown that all these measure- ments are interacting. To rely on only one or two

would be misleading. If for example, standards

of 75 percent efficiency and 90 percent effectiveness were established and achieved, we might assume

that the goal had been met. However, maintenance

effort, must not be overlooked; simultaneously, it might have increased to 50 percent, an alarming

level which could not be detected by measurement

of either efficiency or effectiveness. The same can

be said about set-up time, an area in our operation

too important to be ignored. Therefore all four

parameters are monitored, and established levels for each are employed to measure overall performance. The complexity rating becomes the basis for

charging all customers for services rendered by the

Calibration Laboratory. All costs can be quoted on a firm price based on the cost/UCD. This approach is more accurate than charging by esti- mated labor hours. Also, the responsibility to provide services within the price quoted motivates the

laboratory to operate within accepted efficiency

levels.

Appendix A. Table of Poisson Distributions for

Selecting Optimum Calibration Cycles

Failures*

per item

per year

C

for 99

percent

C

for 95

percent

C

for 90

percent

C

for 85

percent

0 4. 6 3. 0 2. 3 1. 9

1 6. 7 4. 7 3. 9 3. 4

2 8. 4 6. 3 5. 4 4 8

3 10. 7 7. 7 6. 6 6. 1 4 11. 7 9. 0 8. 0 7. 3

5 13. 9 10. 6 9. 1 8. 5

6 14. 6 12. 0 10. 6 9. 7

7 16. 0 13. 0 11. 8 10. 9

8 17. 6 14. 6 13. 0 12. 1 9 18. 9 16. 0 14. 8 13. 3

10 20. 2 17. 0 15. 2 14. 4

11 21. 5 18. 0 16. 6 15. 6

12 22. 9 19. 5 17. 8 16. 7

13 24. 2 21. 0 18. 8 17. 9

14 25. 2 22. 0 20. 2 19. 0

15 26. 8 23. 0 21. 0 20. 1

*In selecting the proper constant, any FIY from zero

to 1 should use the constants listed under the failure rate

of 1. For any failure rate greater than 1, but not exceeding

2, we use the line of constants listed under failure rate 2, and so on.

151
Appendix B. Determination of Specification/Operational Equipment Failure

I. Purpose

To establish responsibility and guidelines for classifica- tion of equipment performance at time of receipt for cali- bration/maintenance servicing. Standardization of classi- fication interpretation is required to normalize failure data used as inputs to a statistical determination of an optimum calibration cycle.

II. Criteria For purposes of this procedure, two conditions will be considered for interpretation

:

(a) Specification compliance ("In" or "Out")

(b) Operational performance ("In" or "Out")

The criterion for "Out of Specification" classification is that the instrument as received will not produce quality

data, for those parameters it is intended to measure, with

the accuracy set forth in the manufacturer's specifications.

This determination is to be made prior to any adjustments.

The criteria for "Operational Failure" classification are

that a significant circuit function of the instrument will not perform, or the instrument cannot be proi>erly set up

to make measurements, or the instrument has mechanically failed. Operational failure does not necessarily constitute specification failure. If, after restoration of proper operation

through component replacement, the instrument is found

to comply with performance specifications without calibra- tion adjustment other than optimizing the replaced component in a circuit, then the instrument has operationally

failed, but is still maintaining specifications. If a component has failed in an accuracy-determining

network, then the "Specification Compliance" classifica- tion shall be discounted in selecting a new calibration

cycle. Similarly, if an instrument is received which has

been misused, ( input network burned out, etc. ), or abused,

(obvious rough handling, improper ventilation, etc.) it shall not be considered for rating as to operational or

specification performance.

Failure of minor components such as fuses or indicators,

which fail due to factors not circuit-induced, shall not be cause for rating the instrument as operationally failed. The minor failure should be remedied, and the instrument

considered as a submission for normal calibration

servicing.

III. Responsibilities and Procedure

Bach laboratory supervisor will designate one techni- cian who will be responsible for the review and rating

of historical records generated by that laboratory. Another technician performing the calibration/maintenance

action will record pertinent ""before calibration" data prior

to adjustment procedure. He will then proceed with making all calibration adjustments to optimum nominal, unless otherwise instructed, after which he is to complete all blocks of the Calibration-Maintenance Report, with the

exception of specification compliance and operational per- formance, and forward his records to the designated re- viewing technician. Based on interpretation of the records,

in the context of the philosophy discussed earlier, the re- viewing technician will annotate these ratings.

The reviewing technician should establish a notebook

listing pertinent factors for each category and type of instrument reviewed, as follows : (a) Significant parameters and checks which are con- sidered indicative of data quality from the instrument

under test and are determinant in "Specification Compli- ance" rating. (b) Checks which if found with specification limits do

not call for adjustment.

( c ) Checks where the adjustment should be on the high

or low side, to account for predicted drift rate and

direction. (d) Information on the aging and maintenance characteristics of the instrument, including specific techniques

which have been successfully (or unsuccessfully)

employed.

The information collected in this fashion will be used to formulate instructions on adjustments and rating factors

for use in future historical records. The immediate labo- ratory supervisor is responsible for implementation and

sustaining this procedure, and rendering assistance in in- terpretation of rating. The Standards & Measurements

Engineering Group will render assistance in data analysis

and determinations of adjustments criteria.

Appendix C. Complexity Rating of Instruments

Type of Instrument Rating (V.C.D.'s) Type of Instrument Rating {U.C..

Micrometer (all sizes) *3 Voltmeter 6200-A 20

Dial Indicator *3 Counter 524-B 30

Caliper *3 Signal Generator 202-G 30

Temperature Controller 10 Vibrationmeter N499 30

Multi-meter 10 Bridge 1650-A 30

Sub-carrier Amp. 10 Resistor 8315 30

Power Supply 10 Pulse Generator PG-32 30

Xtal Oscillator 10 Signal Generator (>CK)-A 30

D.C. Amplifier 20 Power Meter 431-B 30

Plug IN TEA K 20 Oscilloscope TEA (All models) 50

Voltmeter DP-2 10 Analyzer SS-500 50

Voltmeter 320 20 Sweep Oscillator 692-B 50

Voltmeter DV40 20 Recorder Oscillograph 50 VTVM 400 HR 20 Wave Amplifier 277-B 30

Accelerometers (all) 20 Attenuator 10

Divider 80A-5 20 Indicator 415-B 50

Test Panel 20 Beam Osc. 132-A 50 Voltmeter 451-R 20 Function Generator 203-A 50

Oscillator 140-A 20 Vacuum Gauge M34r-7R 50

Pressure Gauge (Heise) 10 B & K Exciter 1028 50

Pressure Gauge (Wallace & Tiernan) 10 Shock Amplifier 2718 50

Scale (Toledo) 2151 30 D.C. Voltmeter DPll 10

Scale 0-2600GR 10 Volt/Ohm Milliammeter 269 10

Voltmeter 7200-A 30 Power Supply LE104FM 10

Pressure Gauge 10 *0r 5, convenience of calculation. Digital Voltmeter 5400 10

152
Appendix C. Complexity Rating of Instruments—Continued

Type of Instrument Rating (U.C.D.'s) Type of Instrument Rating (V.C.D.'s)

Capacitor Decade 219K 20 Attenuator 350B 20

X-Y Recorder 135AM 20 Temperature Controller 20

Test Oscillator 650A 20 Pressure Transducer 607L 20

BPUT timer 7350 20 Electronic Counter 524C 30

Wavemeter 2335-4 20 V.H.F. Signal Gen. 608D 30

Frequency Meter 802B 30 Oscilloscope 531 30

Logarithmic Converter 60D 20 Oscilloscope 547 50 Wide-Band Preamp. H 20 Accessory Module 030 50

153
DETECTING ECONOMIC OBSOLESCENCE IN MEASUREMENT

EQUIPMENT

C. R. Duda

McDonnell-Douglas Astronautics Company, Santa Monica, California 90406 This report outlines two methods to determine optimum replacement age for individual

test and measuring instruments, based on operation at minimum cost rates. The first method requires accumulation of the combined cost of calibration, maintenance, and repair

from the date of equipment purchase. The second method requires only a relatively short sample of the existing service-cost rate. By assuming a logarithmic growth of service costs, one can reasonably predict when the equipment will reach—or perhaps has reached—

a

point when replacement on an economic basis should be considered. This method provides

advantages both in forecasting probable equipment replacement dates, and in locating

economically obsolete equipment within an established inventory.

Introduction

The existence of obsolete laboratory and test equipment within a company is undesirable but

often undetected. Commonly, obsolescence is associated with equipment that has outlived its usefulness, and has become neglected and antiquated. A more subtle form of obsolescence, however, may affect equipment still in everyday use

equipment that exhibits every sign of continued

service and well being. This form of obsolescence,

economic in origin, can unnecessarily drain a com- pany of thousands of dollars yearly. A method

uncovering this waste is described in this report.

But first let us examine technological obsoles- cence—the more obvious form caused by advances

in equipment technology.

Technological Obsolescence

The application of new and better manufacturing methods and processes leads to new and better

equipment. Existing equipment, in comparison,

has lower capability, which gradually results in

lower utilization. A measure of technological

obsolescence would concern itself with decreasing

capability and lower utilization of equipment.

As a partial solution to this problem, equipment

suffering from decreasing utilization can be reas- signed to a more appropriate area. The "obsolete"

instrument in a research laboratory may be ideally

suited to the needs of a testing laboratory.

To solve such utilization problems, many companies have set up centralized equipment management areas to assign, deploy, and purchase

equipment. Despite initial success in forestalling

technological obsolescence by transferring equipment, normal aging processes must eventually pro- vide cause to consider replacement. At this point,

perhaps, the point of initial obsolescence has long

since passed, due to unsuspected economic reasons. The Patterns of Cost

The true cost of equipment is measured not by

acquisition cost alone, but also by the service

charges accumulated during its lifetime. These

service charges include calibration, maintenance,

and repair of the equipment. Customarily, such

costs are treated in bulk, perhaps in the form of

average figures, and seldom are regarded as a rele- vant characteristic of individual equipment. Yet

individual service cost is the key factor in the

determination of equipment obsolescence.

A typical instrument might exhibit the economic

pattern indicated in figure 1. Costs begin with the

purchase price of the unit and thereafter start to climb with an upward curvature as services charges

are incurred. A line through the origin tangent to

this curve represents the minimum-cost rate as equipment ages or is replaced. When the equipment

is new, service is apt to be minimal. But as components age and parts begin to wear, repairs are encountered. Replacement of components may be

followed in time with replacement of entire assemblies. As costs increase the curve begins to climb

at a steeper rate. In addition, calibration will need

to be performed more often, and may take longer.

This is caused by the fact that the instrument was

purchased to meet certain performance specifications, such as accuracy and precision, which must

be maintained. When unobserved, service costs may

silently grow and pass the point when a replacement unit should be considered. Eventually of

course, "repair" may involve a complete overhaul, or require parts that are no longer available, and

the unit may then be replaced. By this time (the

dashed part on the cost curve) the point of eco154
nomic obsolescence, where the minimum-cost line is tangent to the initial curve, may have long since

passed, causing unnecessary expense. The object in

detection of obsolescence is to operate at the lowest

cost rate possible. This minimum-cost rate may be

thought of as the lowest possible monthly charge

during the life of the equipment, considering the

cost of both acquisition and service. At the tangent

point the equipment becomes economically obsolete. Let us see why this is true. First, note that at this point the cycle can be

repeated with no change in the minimum-cost rate. That is, when the same purchase price and servicecharge rate the curve for the replacement unit will return to the minimum-cost line. Since there is no

option to operate below this line—short of uncovering a way to reduce either purchase or service

costs—replacement does not alter the established

rate. Now let us consider the effect of replacement,

whether by plan or neglect, at a time different

from the proposed replacement point. Too early a replacement, before the optimum time (point E in

fig. 1 ) evidently results in a higher cost rate. This

might occur when equipment is replaced at scheduled predetermined intervals. In this case, pre- mature replacement results in a loss represented by

the difference between the actual curve and the

minimum-cost line. A more common failure—late replacement after

the economically optimum replacement point (L in

fig. 1) results in a loss which is the difference

between the actual curve and the minimum-cost

line. One factor which seemingly encourages late replacement is the assumption that the longer one

delays replacement, the more is saved of the re- placement budget. The fallacy, of course, is in dis- regarding the fact that the required service costs to accomplish these savings exceeds the savings and

contributes to an overall loss. By observing the economy of individual instruments, losses otherwise undetected may be found

and corrected. Timely replacement not only saves money, but new equipment becomes available sooner for use. Accounting for Cost

To determine economic obsolescence points for

equipment, the essential information requirements

are acquisition and service costs, and the dates

associated with these costs. Often, service costs within a company are expressed in accounting fig- ures that do not necessarily reflect true costs for our purpose. The service costs of interest can be

thought of as those costs which would immediately

cease upon removal of a particular instrument

from the inventory. Obviously, the cost of service

and replacement parts would cease. But, unless an

extensive program was involved, many overhead

costs—such as floor space, lighting, and depreciation of existing equipment—would remain, Mind-

<

o

EOUIPME

CONTST ^

^^^^

^AIVl 1

1 Ml lull IM l\J 1 IV1U tvi COST

RATE

SECON

REPL

) UNIT ACED

"^/-^ -IRST

=iEPL UNIT ICED

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 EQUIPMENT AGE (YEARS)

FlGtTEB 1.

ful that readily available accounting figures do not

necessarily comprise valid service costs, we offer two methods to consider for determining obsolescence. These methods are presented in the followmg paragraphs.

Obsolescence—Method I For a small amount of equipment, simple plotting of cost vs. age will suffice. Starting with the

acquisition cost, each successive service cost is added and entered at the appropriate date. Figure

2 shows the plot at year 3, with the cost-rate line

drawn through the end point. Eventually a point

of tangency is reached (at year 5 in fig. 1) ; that

is when an instrument becomes economically

obsolete. This method has several disadvantages.

If previous records of service costs are not available, the method can be applied only to yet-to-bepurchased equipment for which such costs can be

accumulated. Furthermore, data must then be col- lected until this new equipment is found to be

absolete. Meanwhile, little can be done to forecast

/ OOS T RATE

EQUIPME

COST NT^^/

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 equipment age (years)

Figure 2.

332-932 0—69 ^11 155
when obsolescence will occur. To solve these problems, the following alternate technique has been

developed.

Obsolescence—Method II

This method differs from Method I only in that

the shape of the cost curve is anticipated, allowing use of cost data collected anytime during the

equipment lifetime. The assumed shape of the cost curve is logarithmic, because this is the naturally

occurring form for many growth and aging processes; furthermore this shape lends itself readily

to either graphical or computer solutions. Again

the acquisition cost and its associated date are

necessary. Suppose that subsequent service costs and dates are converted to a cost rate. Next, a logarithmic curve is chosen, begining at the purchase

cost and conforming to the observed cost rate found to be in effect. This procedure generates the

equipment cost curve from the limited information

available.

<

2.7: X ACQUi; ITION COST

EOUIPM :nt cost OB

F SOLE>RED SCEN CTED

CE ^—MINIMUM ^ RATE COST

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 EQUIPMENT AGE (YEARS)

FiGXTBB 3.

Once this is done, it can be shown (see Appendix) that obsolescence will occur when the cumulative costs reach a value equal to 2.72 times the

acquisition cost, figure 3. The minimum cost rate

is also shown for comparison with the techniques

previously discussed. The advantages of this

method are the ability to determine when obsoles- cence has occurred and the ability to forecast the

event. These advantages are applicable to new

and old equipment alike, since data may be col- lected anytime during equipment lifetime, even if obsolescence has already occurred.

Successive Predictions

By producing a series of obsolescence predictions as each new service cost is available, a check can be made on the assumption of logarithmic

growth of equipment cost. In some cases, each suc- cessive prediction of obsolescence will be longer

than the last, meaning service costs are not increasing at the rate anticipated ; equipment with no appreciable wear will lead to this situation. Or the

opposite case may be encountered. In either case, more data is necessary to improve the accuracy of

prediction than in the deal case where successive

predictions remain the same. Figure 4 shows the results of successive predictions of obsolescence age for an electronic counter

manufactured by a well-know firm. This unit had

been in service for eight years before data was

taken. The first prediction, 17 years, has no real

significance. As more data became available,

predictions became generally stable. At ten years, the obsolescence age and the actual age of the

unit coincided and the counter was removed from

service.

15

5 5

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

PREDICTED OBSOLESCEN(:E AGE =^ TRUE: EQUIPMENT AGE OBSOLESCf:nce

[III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 SAMPLE PERIOD (YEARS)

FiGUBE 4.

Obsolescence detection can be used to economically remove equipment from an inventory for

replacement. The predictive capabality can be used

to forecast the replacement budget required to some extent. Additionally, this capability can be

used as a basis for procurement of equipment having a better probability of long, economical life. In this application it is essential that the utiliza- tion of competitive equipment be nearly equivalent. Equality of maintenance or calibration proce- dures is also important, since any factor which

may minimize service will contribute to a longer

economic life. Conclusion

The retirement age for various types of equipment can be neither arbitrarily fixed nor arbitrarily ignored. The effect of not knowing when

equipment is economically obsolete is almost cer- tainly a loss. And a loss need not always be obvious

156
to become significant. Perhaps the following ex- ample will best illustrate this point. Suppose we

have an instrument purchased for $1000, economically obsolete in eight years, with a minimum-cost

rate of $340 per year. If this fact were not detected an additional two years might pass before replacement, but by this time nearly $100 has been spent on services not needed. This loss is 10 percent of

the replacement cost. In a large company where

the replacement budget may exceed a million dollars, such losses could approach a significant

$100,000.

Admittedly many factors have not been dis- cussed, such an inflation, taxes, depreciation, and

such. Also, the fact that there can be many factors

to consider before replacement of equipment is fully justified. Nevertlieless, a signal when such

decisions are necessary, based on the economics of

service costs, can be a valuable tool in the management of equipment.

Appendix. Logarithmic Obsolescence Analysis (Method II)

In order to reconstruct and extrapolate cost curves when only limited cost data is available, service charges

are assumed to describe a logarithmic curve. Therefore,

equipment costs, Y, can be represented by the equation

(1)

where b is the acquisition cost (purchase price plus pre- liminary service), e is the natural logarithmic base, a is the service cost factor, and x is the age of equipment.

The minimum-cost rate is defined as a straight line tangent to the cost curve and has the equation

Y2=mx (2) where m is the slope. At the obsolescence point, where the cost curve and

the minimum cost rate line are tangent, the two costs and the two slopes are equal:

and

dYi —r— =m.

ax

Differentiating eq (1), we find

dYi

dx = abe'"'.

(3)

(4)

(5)

Combining the previous equations yields the following obsolescence point relationships:

dYi

m= =abe'"' = aYi = aY2 = amx

dx

(6)

and thus from the first and last terms

(7) Equation (7) shows that x, the age of equipment at obsolescence, is merely the reciprocal of the service cost

factor, a. To solve for this factor, eq (5) can be used. For this application dYi is the incremental service costs, dx is the time interval involved, and x is the average age

of the equipment during the data period. Since factor a appears twice as an unknown, there is no direct solution. Graphical techniques require locating

b, the acquisition cost, at x=0. From this point a straight

line can be drawn on semilog paper so that the observed

cost rate during the data period is correct at the appropriate value of X. From eq (6) and (7), substitution shows

that at obsolescence

Yi = be, (8)

or, the equipment cost is 2.72 times the acquisition cost. From this value, the graph can be read directly to obtain

X, the obsolescent age. Computer solution to this problem can be done by iteration. An approximate value is assigned to one of the a's in eq (5) and the solution is found for the resulting value of the other a. Then, these two values of a are averaged and

used as the new approximate value for one a. This process

is continued until the a's are found equal, which of course

solves the equation. The reciprocal of the final value of a

is the obsolescent age. Because costs seldom occur ideally, some deviation be- tween successive estimates of obsolescent ages should be expected as additional service cost data are entered. To

better observe the trends toward or away from logarithmic cost accumulation, smoothing of the obsolescence age predictions may be desired. One method of doing

this is by averaging each pair of original obsoclescence

ages, averaging each pair of averaged points, and replaceing the original values with these points.

157
CALIBRATION DATA COLLECTION AND UTILIZATION

Wayne L. Bates

Head, Analytical Studies Staff, Metrology Engineering Center, Naval Plant Representative, Pomona, California 91766 This paper discusses the various data elements related to the calibration function and

their use in reports, studies, and management control systems.

Introduction

The a great extent the true product of the Standards or Calibration Laboratory is data. From it we

get measured values whose accuracies are traceable

to the National Bureau of Standards (NBS),

product quality assurance, control of the calibration system, and a measure of the effectiveness of

the calibration process. No effort is made in this

paper to discuss the analysis process. Information on analysis techniques may be found in the bibli- ography.

Types of Data Systems

Following are three basic types of data systems

currently in use:

1. Manual Systems—All control and variables

data are entered on a report form, such as shown

in figure 1, by the calibration technician. These

reports may be filed, retrieved and sunmiarized by

hand. They are easily modified to meet individual

measurement needs. The principal cost in maintaining such a system is in the man-hours expended in hand tabulation and summurization of the

data. Manual systems are normally limited to approximately 3000 test instrument calibrations per

year.

2. Conventional Punched Card Data Processing

Systems (EAM) —Selected information on the

report form is keypunched on cards. These cards

may then be sorted in most any sequence and the

punched information printed directly on a tabuCAL I 3S» I I CN ( 1 ) LA BOR» TOR

Y

aUt DATE

CUS TOHE B ACTIVITY

DATE iitCf I VEO

MOOEL/PAHT NO.

OAYE LAS 5vC OATE CAL COUP

(6)

urn CODE SERIAL NO.

PROCEDURE USED:

lOKESCLATURE

REASON SU3MITTE0:

! . SCHEOULEO

2. UNSCKEOULEO

MO OAY lYR CONO IT I CN RECEIVED:

1 . I N TOL

2. OUT Of T

3 . I N 0 P E R

a . 0 AKA SE 0

SVC ON SITE YES lAN-nOUS a E P A I R| MA N- H 00 R CALIi 4-

TYPE OF CALII

1 . ELEC/ELEX

2 . COA X/K I CROWA VE

3. OPT/D IKEN.

i. PaY/ME CM

VAL'JE IF FIXED STANDARD

0 'J R I TENTH H0\1« [TENTH

SERVICING

LA8EL ATTACHED;

t . CA L I 6.

2 . L I K i TED I USE I

3 . RE J E CTEO

SPN

APFROPa I ; I CK ELAPSED TIME

ENTER OUT OF TOLERANCE VALUES ONLY PROCEOUBE

STEP NO. FUNCTIONTESTED

NOM I NAL VALUEFIRST ,V E A S . VALUE

LOTIER TOLERANCE

UPPER TOLERANCE

CLOCK T U' E

PARTS REPLACED;

NOTE: CHECK IF CONTINUATION SHEET. (ENTER ADDITIONAL OUT OF TOLESANCE VALUES AND COMPLETE ONLY

I TEMS t TKSCUSH 6 ABOVE)

REPLY i-ECUESTEC Q

FiGDBE 1. Calibration report form.

158
lated format. Data accumulation is simplified, but

computations other than addition and subtraction

must be performed manually. In order to perform

a meaningful sort the infonnation usually is limited to a single card of 80 characters. The cost of

operating such a system with three readouts is less than $0.50 per test instrument. This system is us- ually used by laboratories with workloads of be- tween 2000 and 20,000 test instrument calibrations

per year.

3. Magnetic Tape Systems—As with the previ- ous system, cards are punched from selected information on the report form. This information is transferred to magnetic tape which can then be

used in a high-speed scientific computer. Here the

infoi'mation for a single test instrument is not

limited to one card and the computer can perform

an unlimited amount of computational tasks such

as adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing, av- eraging, extracting roots, testing chi-square, etc.

Programming, set-up, and machine time usually

restrict the use of magnetic tape systems to laboratories performing at least 10,000 test instrument

calibrations per year. The cost of a typical magnetic tape system is approximately $1.50 per test instrument.

Design of the Calibration Report Form

In designing a report format, such as the one shown in figure 1, prime consideration should be

given to the me of data elements in reports, evaluations, or management controls. Figure 2 is a

table relating the uses of data to the data elements

themselves. The figure (1) shown in the table

signifies a data element required for the use noted.

A (2) denotes a useful but not necessary element,

and a (3) indicates the element is not required for

the corresponding use.

Figure 2. Table of data elements vs. uses of data

Use of data

Data elements

Inventory Recall

schedules

Workload

control

Attribute

reliability

studies

Variables

reliability

studies

(engr.

analysis)

Management

analysis

Laboratory

evaluation

Calibration

interval

determination

Maintenance

and

repair

studies

Customer's

report

of

calibration

Calibration Lab code 3 1 1 2 3 1 1 3 3 3 Customer activity or location code 1 1 3 2 2 1 3 2 1 Model number 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 Manufacturer code 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 Serial (or inventory) number 1 1 3 2 3 3 2 1 Nomenclature 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 Next due date 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 Date received 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 Date last serviced 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 Date calibration completed 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Service on site 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 Procedure used 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 Man-hours to calibrate 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 Man-hours to repair 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 3 Reason submitted 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 Condition received 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 Type of calibration 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 Label type (condition returned) 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2

In- tolerance variables data 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 1 Out-of-tolerance variables data 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 2 2 1 Parts replaced 3 3 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 2 Costs of parts replaced 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 1 3 Hourly cost rate 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 2 3 Replacement cost 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 NBS traceability 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 Utilization hours 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2

I-Requlred; 2-useful; 3-not required.

159
Bibliography

(1) Dyke, F. and Taylor, K., "Methods for Retrieving

and Correlating Technical Data," (a manual)

American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM).

(2) Vondracek, J., "Data Collection, Utilization and

Analysis Subcommittee Report," Proceedings of the 1966 Standards Laboratory Conference, NBS

Miscellaneous Publication 291. (3) Smith, N. D., "Maintenance Scheduling By Sequential Testing," Instruments & Control Systems^

August 1966.

(4) Ku, H. H., "Statistical Concepts in Metrology," Ch.

2 in Handbook of Industrial Metrology, PrenticeHall, New York, 1967.

(5) Touden, W. J., "How to Evaluate Accuracy," and

Connor, W. S., "How to Evaluate Precision,"

Materials Research & Standards, Vol. 1, No. 4, April 1961.

(6) McGuire, J. E., "An Electronic Data Processing Pro- gram for Establishing Calibration Intervals," 1965 ISA Conference, Preprint number 42.3-3-65.

(7) Hager, C. L., "Confidence Intervals and Calibration Uncertainty," ISA Journal, April 1966. (8) Moss, C. E. Jr., "Assigning Calibration Intervals," Instruments & Control Systems, January 1966.

(9) Natrella, M. G., "Experimental Statistics," NBS

Handbook 91. (10) Hagerty, R. J., "Measurement Limits for Optimizing

Production," Measurement & Data, March-April

1967.

160
NCSL 68

SESSION 8: THE MANAGEMENT OF VALUABLE MEASUREMENTS

Chairman: A. J. Woodington

General Dynamics/Convair, San Diego, California 92112 VALUE ENGINEERING TECHNIQUES—

A WAY OF MANAGING VALUABLE MEASUREMENTS

Phil I. Harr

Corporate Director, Reliability, Quality Control, Value Control, General Dynamics, New York, N.Y. 10014

Today's social, economic, and political environments place tremendous pressures on manager,

engineer, and shop worker alike to achieve high

product quality, as well as outstanding performance—and at lower costs than ever before. These

pressures have become so intense that we are faced

with a major crisis in the development of the whole

industrial process if we are to prosper or indeed

even to survive. Fortunately there have been evolving, over a period of years, a number of management systems, practices, or disciplines which have

been designed to assure the quality of our products

while maintaining or reducing costs and improving delivery schedules. The control of measure- ment tools and equipment is one of the most important of these management systems.

Accuracy of measurements is vital to any industrial process. The performance and high quality

of many of today's complex products and systems

are evidence of the progress in measurements techniques in industry. Such accomplishments would

not have been possible without a corresponding

rapid growth in our capability to measure accurately and consistently. However, project management at every level in government and industry

must carefully plan for the measurement tasks

involved in all phases of the product life cycle, if we are to assure that quality is built into and maintained in our products. Careful selection and clear

specification of such tasks, even at the stage of re- quests for proposals, is of critical importance to the operational success of components as well as

systems. The metrology specialist must participate

in all phases of the development and identification

of the measurement tasks involved in the support

of product quality (fig. 1)

.

How can we best make logical decisions con- cerning the measurement control tasks to be implemented on a particular project or program? I believe that value engineering techniques are now

PRODUCT QUALITY ASSURANCE

PRODUCT FLOW <2)-

PRODUCT INSPECTION

SUPPORTING ELEMENTS

SPECIFICATIONS DRAWINGS

CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

TOOLING

TEST AND MEASURING EQUIPMENT

PERSONNEL CAPABILITIES EXPERIENCE TRAINING

CERTIFICATION

FiGUBE 1. Support for product quality.

developed to the point where they can be valuable

management tools in making such decisions. This

is true not only in the development of the original

plan but also in the dynamics of its day-to-day

use. Have the answers really been provided for

such questions as

What parameters and tolerances must be

measured ? What parameters and tolerances would it be

desirable to measure ? What is the environment for each measurement ? Are the measurement procedures available ? Are trained measurement personnel available?

Is the proper measurement equipment available ? Is the proper measurement equipment support

available ? Will the answers to the above questions provide

the measurements in the most economical manner

consistent with performance requirements?

To manage valuable measurements it is neces- sary to have a measurement control program. I

shall discuss a program with nine major elements,

as diagrammed in figure 2,

161
MEASUREMENT CONTKOL

"TASK ElIMENTS"

PLANNING

DATA

(USE! TEST EQUIPMENT

MEASUREMENT

CONTROL PROGRAM

MAINTENANCE

OF STANDARDS

TRAINING

CALIBRATION & MAINTENANCE Of TEST EQUIPMENT

AUDIT

TEST EQUIPMENT

DISTRIBUTION & UTILIZATION

ACQUISITION AND

DISPOSAL

ADMINISTRATION

Figure 2. Elements of a measurement control program.

Planning

This element covers measurement considerations

from the conception of the program through feasibility, development, production, delivery to user, and period of use by the procuring organization.

Throughout the program a few questions must be

answered—Is the measurement necessary? Can it be accomplished in the controlling environment?

Is it being done at minimum cost while meeting

specifications? It cannot be overemphasized that

decisions made in the feasibility and development

phases can commit the production and user phases

to an expensive measurement process. Administration

Every program has certain administrative procedures to provide continuity and to define the

action required at known interfaces between

groups. The type of organization to be used in the

execution of the measurement control program

must be determined. Although a single organization may be desirable in some cases, it is not neces- sary for the accomplishment of the program. Participation of many groups helps to promote understanding and cooperation in the execution of the

program.

Maintenance of Standards

The complexity of many products has resulted

in sub-assemblies being produced in many different

manufacturing plants. To avoid assembly problems, all measurement equipment must be cali- brated with standards that can trace their accuracies to an acceptable common standard. In this

country, the National Bureau of Standards nor- mally is in possession of such a common standard.

To prevent unnecessary tolerance degradation,

a review of the optimum number of calibration

echelons from NBS to the product must be made.

Of course a cost study is included in the review.

Calibration and Maintenance of Test and

Measuring Equipment

Here we must give consideration to calibration

procedures and techniques, types and quantities of

calibartion standards and auxiliary equipment re- quired, calibration laboratory environment re- quired, and skill levels and quantity of personnel

required. This provides a challenge for value engineering techniques. The separation of calibration

from maintenance of test and measuring equipment is not recommended, because of the additional

time required for each task, and the duplication

of personnel and measurement equipment.

Test Equipment Distribution and

Utilization

For effective utilization of measuring equipment, it must be distributed among using personnel

so as to be conveniently available to the maximum

number. Since recalibration is a necessity, some

system must be established for returning test equipment to the calibration laboratory, or for

calibration "in place." This system normally in- cludes location records as well as issue records.

From such records, the quantity of equipment re- quired as well as most cost-effective distribution can be ascertained. Let me stress the point that

equipment-using personnel will tend to "hoard"

equipment rather than share it, unless the equipment is easily available. The "hoarding" process

is rather costly.

Use Data on Test Equipment

A definition of the end use of data is required

to maximize their value and minimize their

amount. Some uses to be considered are: failure

rate, effect of failures on product, level of difficulty to maintain, skill level required to use, length of

calibration interval, and economical disposition.

162
The techniques of acquiring and presenting the

data must be considered. Should they be manual,

semi-automatic, or fully automatic ? The quantity

of measurement equipment and the availability of

data-processing equipment are two governing

factors.Training of User Personnel

The importance of training the user of measure- ment equipment in the proper application and use

of the equipment cannot be exaggerated. I am sure

that most of you can give examples of measurement

data that were invalid because of misapplication

or improper operation. But how many times did

you identify the cost to repeat the measurements ? To date, very few places are available to teach

the application, use, and calibration of measuring

equipment, even though manufacturers provide some information on their equipment. Making

visible the cost of repeating measurements will in- dicate the cost effectiveness of adequate user training. Those places where it is impossible, or at least very costly to repeat a measurement, must be

clearly identified and handled accordingly. Every

user should be made fully aware of the important

management decisions which will be based on his

measurements.

Audit of Measurement Control Program

Although some method of determining the compliance to the defined control program is required,

the audit techniques should be studied to see whether the desired results are achieved with minimum costs and annoyance to program personnel.

Some audit techniques can cause passive resistance

to compliance with the control program.

Acquisition and Disposal of Test

Equipment

Although this is being discussed last, it is very

important to the success of the program. In the

acquisition phase, some points to consider are: type of equipment required for the measurements,

ease of use, ease of calibration and maintenance,

availability of parts, reliability, and user acceptability. The disposal process is emphasized because

cost of ownership will continue if the equipment is kept available for use after it has served its purpose. The program must make visible to management all test and measuring equipment which is inactive for any reason. Such devices must be re- moved from the calibration and maintenance cycle

and disposed of as surplus, if further need has not

been clearly identified.

Although nine elements are listed, it is readily

apparent that they cannot be considered independently. The extent of interdependence is subject to the degree of centralization of the measurement

control program. Some of the advantages resulting

from a centralization as indicated in figure 3 are standardized nomenclature ; catalog of test equipment available and its location; early determination of requirements; preferred test equipment

listings; standardization of spare parts; standardization of calibration procedures; reduced

training requirements ; reduced calibration effort

;

improved quality of measurements ; joint procurement cost reductions; optimized calibration

intervals.

FLOW - MEASUREMENT CONTROL

SOURCE

TEST EQUIPMENT

NBS

PROCUREMENT

STANDARDS

MEASUREMENT CON- TRa RECEIVING & REQUIREMENTS

jzzr

CALIBRATION & MAINTENANCE

SURPLUS

INACTIVATION TEMPORARY CALI- BRATION EXEMPTION

Figure 3. Centralizing a measurement control program.

163
Here are a few of the results from our five-year

Measurement Control Program, utilizing various

combinations of the task elements discussed

1. Availability of the measuring equipment

within the company. Over this period the identified equipment increased threefold with a resulting

increase in utilization, and reduction in procurement costs (fig. 4)

.

TEST AND MEASUREMENT EQUI PMENT ACTIVITY

SURPLUS J

CALIBRATION EXEMPT.

AC- IVE

1 2 3 4 5

YEARS FROM IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTROL

Figure 4. Results in equipment availability.

STANDARDS AND CALIBRATION LABORATORIES MANPOWER

12 3 4 5

YEARS FROM IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTRa FiGUBE 5. Results in calibration manpower.

EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE MATERIAL COSTS

1 2 3 4 5

2. Manpower requirements for the calibration

effort dropped approximately 50 percent (fig. 5).

3. Measurement equipment maintenance material costs were reduced by more than 40 percent

(fig. 6).

4. Other savings were realized, but methods to define them are not currently available.

In summary, a Measurement Control Program

is being recognized at all levels of management as

YEARS FROM IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTRa

FiGTJEK 6. Results in maintenance material costs.

a way to provide high-quality measurements at minimum cost for a given product or project. To

achieve this goal, value engineering techniques

should be applied to all elements of the Measurement Control Program.

164
GOVERNMENT'S VIEW OF CONTRACTOR'S MANAGEMENT OF VALUABLE

MEASUREMENTS

H. B. Berkowitz

Chief, Quality Engineering Applications Branch, Quality Assurance Engineering Division, HQ DSA Contract Administration Services, Cameron Station, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 During contract performance, contractors normally generate numerous types and

varied amounts of valuable measurements. The purpose of this paper is to provide an

insight into the why, vi^hen, where, what, and how DCAS reacts to a contractor's manage- ment control of his measurements. Recognition is given to the Department of Defense

Contract Administration Services Plant Cognizance Program Objectives specified in DoD

Instruction 4105.59 (ref. 1).

Introduction

A contractor's management of valuable meas- urements is of interest and concern to the Government. The word "Government" as used herein

refers to the Defense Contract Administration

Services, commonly known as DCAS. The Government's interest can be expressed by the following five key questions:

1. Why is the Government interested in the way

contractors manage ? 2. What are the advantages to the Government

for efficient contractor's management ? 3. How can the Government benefit from a dynamic organization for contractor's management ? 4. When and to what degree should the Government ascertain the efficacy of a contractor's management ? 5. Where and to what extent should the Government assess contractor's management controls ? The purpose of this paper is to discuss these

questions and propose suitable answers. The views

expressed herein represent those of the Department

of Defense in general and the Defense Contract

Administration Services in particular.

Key Phrases

The following definitions are furnished to assure

the party-line concept between Government and

industry in consideration of this paper

1. Valuable Measurements—Those physical and

functional characteristics, such as dimensions,

hardness, tensile strength, weight, percentage of

chemical impurity, etc., essential to be made and

recorded and which are determined to be of considerable use, value, service, or importance.

a. Physical Characteristics—Quantitative and

qualitative expressions of material features, such

as composition, dimensions, finishes, form, fit, and

their respective tolerances.

b. Functional Characteristics—Quantitative

parameters of performance, operations, and logistics, and their respective tolerances. Functional

characteristics include such performance parameters as range, speed, reliability, maintainability,

lethality, safety.

2. Contractor''s Management—Direction provided by a contractor for accomplisliing an enter- prise through the planning, organizing, coordinating, and controlling of its human and material

resources toward the attainment of a predetermined objective.

3. Govemmenfs View—The regard, reaction,

recognition, or consideration of the Government

(e.g.. How does the Government respond or react or what recognition does the Government give ? )

.

4. Defense Contract Administration Services

{DCAS) —An organizational entity of DSA, comprised of a headquarters staff and a field organization of geographic and plant components, established to provide uniform administration services

for DoD contracts with private industry.

Measurements—Reliable versus

Valuable

1. Valuable measurements are generally considered to be reliable, but reliable measurements are not necessarily valuable. Reliable measurements

are those derived from devices whose accuracy is traceable to a known standard. Data resulting

from measurements are one of the contractual endor by-products, and the bases for a course of action,

whether hardware or software is involved. We can

safely state that valuable data are those which are

reliable, whether they result in acceptance, rejection, or a condition of indecision. In one contract- ual situation, hardware could be the direct product, with test or inspection data as the supporting

by-product. In a contractual R&D situation where

165
no hardware is involved, test or inspection data

could be the direct product.

2. Contractors usually strive to develop valuable

data but sometimes it is difficult to separate the

wheat from the chaff. Contractor-recorded inspection, test, and performance data generally include

a wealth of valuable information. However, we

must continuously resassess the values initially

assigned in light of economics, criticality, and

specific needs. Detailed review of such data as programs advance often shows that the data originally

thought most valuable are really not worth too much.

Responsibilities of the Contractor

1. The contractor is responsible for carrying

out his obligations as set forth in the terms and

conditions of the contract and in the applicable

specification.

2. The contractor is responsible for controlling

product quality and for offering to the Government for acceptance only those supplies that con- form to contract requirements and, when required,

maintaining and furnishing substantiating evi- dence of this conformance. With this end in view,

the quality of a contractor's product depends to a

large degree on the effectiveness of the contractor's control over his manufacturing processes, and his inspection and testing operations.

3. The contractor is responsible for instituting

such controls over quality as may be necessary

to insure that the product he produces conforms

to the consumers' quality requirements. Equally

important, the contractor is obligated to substantiate the quality of his product by objective, verifiable evidence. Thus a contractor ordinarily sells not only supplies, but also evidence that the product offered to the consumer was properly fabricated and subjected to an effective inspection.

4. It is this objective, verifiable evidence (the

valuable measurements) that is the contractual byproduct which places confidence and integrity m

the contractor's decision-makers and in the con- sumer's eyes. Notwithstanding the product dis- position status, a condition of "customer satisfaction" usually results.

Responsibilities of Government

1. The Government purchasing activity is responsible for establishing contractual quality

requirements.

2. The Government is responsible for determining (a) the type and extent of Government procurement quality actions and (b) whether or not

the contractual requirements have in fact been

met before acceptance of supplies.

3. The purchasing activity must communicate

these requirements in writing to the contractor. These requirements are of two kinds, and therefore two types of specifications must be prepared

(a) product specifications that specify the particular quality characteristics to which the product must conform (e.g., hardness), and the

examinations and tests by which the conformance

is to be assured, and (b) systems specifications

which identify certain environmental requirements (e.g., calibration capabilities) that provide

for the quality control the contractor should

exercise.

4. It is incumbent on the Government to exercise sufficient surveillance over the contractor's program to assure that effective controls are in

fact established and maintained pursuant to contract terms. The amount (severity) of this

surveillance is appropriately a function of the

effectiveness of the contractor's controls and the

demonstrated quality of the product—permitting

a minimum of surveillance when a contractor is demonstrably reliable.

5. Essentially, contractual responsibility must

be emphasized. The Government will reward the

quality contractor through less surveillance effort,

and penalize a poor contractor through increased

surveillance and administrative actions.

Goals in Product Quality

To determine whether measurement information is valuable for solving a specific problem, we must ask whether it meets the requirements

set by the problem. Large quantities of undiscovered defectives could create production diffi- culties at users' facilities. When they are disclosed

at the consuming plants, the user is forced to establish a full acceptance inspection and to retest delivered articles and component parts, which is a wasteful practice.

In the relationship of quality to measurement

information, three things must be recognized:

1. Measurements constitute an important part

of all work whose quality has a direct effect on

the product quality.

2. The capability of measuring processes for

insuring product (juality rests on their reliability

(e.g., the probability that measurements will provide information whose accuracy corresponds to the requirements of the specific problem).

3. It is essential to establish conditions which

fully eliminate the possibility of obtaining meas- urements which are either incorrect or lack the

accuracy needed for a specific problem.

Valuable Data Management

1. Contractors are responsible for the control

of product quality. The relevant records of contractors' findings constitute the objective evidence

for decision-making and form a part of the contractor's quality data bank. This bank generally

includes, but is not limited to, the following types

of information

a. Data developed as a result of contractually

required examinations and tests of products.

166
b. Results of inspections which are self- imposed in order to meet production standards.

c. Records of rejected items or nonconforming characteristics.

d. Records maintained to control various

processes.

e. Records developed through a material re- view system.

2. Although data are collected independently by

the Government in the course of assuring that adequate controls are in fact exercised by the contractor, the Government normally evaluates the

data in the contractor's quality data bank for

currency, accuracy, reliability, repetitious defi- ciencies, comparison of contractor versus Government findings, the timeliness and effectiveness of

corrective actions, and the extent of the contractor's analysis and use of his data.

3. It is essential that a determination be made

as to whether the data were obtained through use

of measuring and testing devices having an ac- curacy traceable to known standards. Once this

is established, the contractor's inspection data

take on a new property—that of valuable

measurements.

4. Control of the accuracy of measuring and

testing equipment is such an important element

of a contractor's quality program or inspection

system that the Department of Defense has considered it advisable to expand on those parts of

MIL-Q-9858A (ref. 2) and MII^I-45208A (ref.

3) pertaining specifically to calibration. This additional detail has been provided in a separate

specification, MIL-(M5662A (ref. 4).

5. Contractors' records form a basis of action by

both the contractor and the Government. Recordkeeping for the records' sake serves no useful purpose, but record-keeping as a tool for management

will preclude many embarrassing situations. Valuable data cost money to obtain, and we should

make effective use of them.

Contractor's Management of Valuable

Measurements

1. For purposes of discussion, contractor's management actions on measurements will be assessed

in terms of their contribution to the five basic

DoD objectives prescribed in DoD Instruction

4105.59

a. Improved management of contracts in the

field.b. Provision of more uniform and timely

support to buying activities and program managers by Government field representatives.

c. Minimized duplication of effort. d. Decreased operating costs.

e. Reduced Government controls over in- dustry.

2. Why is the Government interested in the way

a contractor manages? What are the advantages

to the Government of efficient contractor's management? How can the Government benefit from

a dynamic organization of contractor's management ? When and to what degree should the Government ascertain the efficacy of contractor's management? Where and to what extent should the

Government assess contractor's management controls? Answers to these questions follow.

a. Where effective contractor's management

exists, it will decrease the Government's operating

costs through avoiding the repetition of inspections that the contractor should have performed.

It should also reduce the contractor's costs. Where

ineffective contractor's management exists, it will

necessitate additional costs due to the Government

inspections required.

b. Where contractor management assumes a

full contractural responsibilities, it will reduce

Government controls over industry through

checking less material less often. This disengagement will prevail as long as the contractor demonstrates control, and will permit concentration of

Government manpower on problems and trends.

c. Effective contractor's management will re- sult in greater flexibility of operation through improved contractor-Government rapport, and will

encourage Government disengagement. Ineffective contractor's management may result in bad

product and will call for increased administrative

action by the Government.

Conclusions

1. Customer satisfaction is the end result of sat- isfactory contract performance. Effective contractor's management of valuable measurements

can lead to many beneficial results—decreased

costs being the most significant—and yet provide

the desired satisfaction. It also enables the Government to realize cost reductions with no degradation of product quality or loss in performance

effectiveness.

2. I wish I could compute the cost effectiveness

of valuable measurements management. I believe

that suitable economic data are not readily available, and techniques for obtaining the data are inadequate.

3. A better environment exists today for innovation and improvement in our decision-making and

our management controls over valuable measurements. We've made progress but we are far from

our goals.

References

(1) DoD Instruction 4105.59, Department of Defense

Contract Administration Services Plant Cognizance

Program, October 13, 1964.

(2) MILr-Q-9858A, Quality Program Requirements, De- cember 16, 1963.

(3) MILr-I-4.5208A, Inspection System Requirements, De- cember 16, 1963. (4) MIL-C^5662A, Calibration System Requirements,

February 9, 1962.

167
SOME DEVELOPMENTS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF STANDARDS

ACTIVITIES IN THE NBS INSTITUTE FOR BASIC STANDARDS

B. W. Birmingham

Deputy Director, IBS/Boulder, National Bureau of Standards, Boulder, Colorado 80302 The traditional responsibility of the. NBS Institute for Basic Standards has been to provide the central basis of the U.S. system of physical measurement. Recently, in response

to pleas for stronger efforts to meet -the Nation's measurement needs, we have broadened

our objectives to include central national leadership of the measurement system. We have

looked rather carefully at many of the Nation's measurement problems and already are working toward solutions of some of them. We are improving our information and data

services to standards laboratories and are working on better methods for measuring the performance of standards laboratories (the accuracy of their outputs). We have established a new OfQce of Measurement Services in IBS Washington to help improve our services and

the relevance of our programs to national needs. All NBS units in Boulder are now under a

single management which also is giving strong attention to improved services and program

relevance. Through direct contacts with key organizations, through a system of advisory

panels, we are strengthening our basis for effective program decisions. These efforts already

have received favorable recognition by several echelons of our higher management.

Introduction

This afternoon I shall bring you up to date on some recent plans and policy developments in the

NBS Institute for Basic Standards (IBS) and

on some recent organizational changes. In doing

so I shall be speaking not only for myself, but also for Dr. Ernest Ambler, Director of IBS, who had

a prior engagement and could not be in Boulder

this week.

First, I want to discuss the primary responsibility of IBS and to show how it is being broadened with the aim of providing leadership for the

National Measurement System. Then, as illustra- tions of our efforts in the leadership area, I shall

point out some of the current problems of the meas- urement system and some of our work in response

to these problems. Finally, I shall describe some

organizational arrangements that we have made

recently to help us in the decision-making process. Broadening the Responsibility of IBS

For many years a primary responsibility of

IBS has been to provide the central basis for the

U.S. system of physical measurement, to coordinate this system with that of other nations, and to provide essential services leading to an accurate and uniform system of measurement within the

nation. In fulfilling this role, the main outputs of

IBS are valid measurement methods, calibrated

standards, and evaluated data. These functions

and these outputs, no doubt, are quite familiar to you. Within the past two or three years our concepts of the IBS role and objectives have undergone some significant changes which I would like to discuss with you today.

At the 1966 Standards Laboratory Conference

R. D. Huntoon described the concept of a National

Measurement System [1], including the "central core" role played by NBS, the work of many other

measurement laboratories, and the everyday

measurements made by millions of our citizens. My discussion will be based on this system concept.

Despite the obvious importance of measure- ment, the measurement system is not working as well as it should. Writers have spoken of a "measurement pinch" or "measurement gap"

which has slowed the pace of American technological progress. They have spoken of our declining

measurement posture and feel the costs of this decline are staggering although impossible to evaluate accurately. They have made strong pleas

for steps to meet the measurement needs of the

country on a timely basis, with the cooperative

action of various national groups and with NBS

spearheading and coordinating the effort. Thus there emerges a broader role for IBS than

merely providing the central basis for the measure- ment system. The broader role we are asked to play is that of providing central national leadership of the system.

Leadership of the system implies studying and

understanding the system, evaluating its effective- ness and its deficiencies, and initiating corrective

and innovative action where needed. In other

words, we are requested to look more broadly and

deeply into the measurement system and to do all we can to make it more effective.

168
Leadership of the system also implies responsibility for its effective operation. However, NBS

has no formal regulatory authority and must

depend upon voluntary acceptance of its leadership and its recommendations. Such acceptance can be based only on recognized competence.

IBS Work on Some Important Measurement Problems

In efforts to provide the leadership expected of

IBS, we already have looked rather carefully at many of the problems of the measurement system

and are working toward solutions of some of the

most important of these. To understand these, let us review three types

of measurement information with which we deal. The types are:

1. Information on how to measure; for example, papers on measurement techniques and error

analysis, critical review papers, and measurement

system studies.

2. Quantitative information (data) ; for example, pressure and temperature fixed points, values

of physical constants, and the properties of

materials.

3. Information provided through formal cali- bration of standards and instruments; for example, gage blocks, resistance thermometers, and

atomic clocks. The first two types of information are dis- tributed through publications, conferences, etc., not primarily through the hierarchcy of calibration laboratories. Formal calibrations of instruments and standards, on the other hand, are

distributed largely through the calibration

hierarchy.

With these facts in mind, let us now summarize

some of the current problems of the measurement

system.

One problem we encounter repeatedly is the lack

of adequate information on how to measure. In

widely separated locations, laboratory personnel

have told us, in essence, "We have good measuring

equipment and standards. What we especially

need is better information on how to use them."

A rather general complaint is that calibration

services often are not available at NBS when

needed. As a result, makeshift procedures have

been necessary in industry ; for example, shipping

a guided missile back and forth between the fac- tory and the launching site to resolve measure- ment discrepancies, or sending engineers and

calorimeters back and forth between the east coast and the west coast to reconcile disagreements be- tween a radar systems manufacturer and a klys- tron manufacturer. Such makeshifts eventually

may achieve measurement agreement, but they are time-consuming and expensive.

We find that the quality of standards of cali- bration laboratories is spotty. Some companies

make no effort to establish a measurement capability until they have a contract which requires

it, while others attempt to maintain capabilities approaching the state-of-the-art for the fields in

which they work. Since stable equipment and continuity of experience are necessary to make ac- curate measurements, laboratories of the former

type often have difficulty in meeting their company's measurement needs. We find that private

calibration laboratories face a number of problems. First, it is difficult to build a staff and facili- ties for high quality measurement work. Second,

there is a potential conflict of interest between the

need for profit and the painstaking work required

for high measurement accuracy. Third, the private

laboratory does not have formal responsibility for

accuracy or for continuity and uniformity of

service. As a result there is a tendency to avoid the

services offered by such laboratories, particularly newer ones that have not yet established their

reputations. Some agencies are unwilling to buy

services until they have adequate evidence of

quality.

The solutions to some of these problems should

take account of certain obvious trends. With our

rapid growth in population and with a gross national product which has an increasing technological content, more and more measurements of

greater accuracy certainly will have to be made.

Greater demands will be made on all types of

standards laboratories. Therefore, the problems of

providing information on measurements and of

devising means for measuring the performance of

standards laboratories will become still more critical. I want to describe some of our efforts toward

the solution of these problems.

A recent example of IBS response to the need

for more information on how to measure is the

Radio Standards and Measurements Information

Center in Boulder, which Mr. Anson already has

discussed. As he pointed out, this Center is generating current awareness lists, ordinary or an- notated bibliographies, survey papers, state-of- the-art reviews, and special purpose articles, in

the field of electromagnetic measurements.

Other examples are groups which have been

functioning for some years such as the Cryogenic

Data Center, which similarly serves the low

temperature field, and the JILA Information

Analysis Center (in the Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics), which serves primarily the

needs of plasma physicists and astrophysicists.

One cannot get reliable data without good meas- urement techniques, and good measurement techniques are rare. As a result, published data often

are wrong. All of these Centers emphasize critical review and analysis of measurement techniques.

In this way they are able to recognize the meaningful data in the literature and to evaluate it. Such

evaluated data often are called Reference Data.

They serve as reliable bases for the verification of

scientific theories, for design purposes, and as ready-made calibrations.

169
We are working on improved methods for de- termining the accuracy of our own outputs, and

these methods may also be useful to other laboratries. One of our goals is to provide detailed state- ments of errors for our calibration efforts. These

are to include (1) more information on what we

do when we make a calibration, and (2) more detailed analysis of the uncertainties we assign. We

already have made significant progress

(a) We have completed a 3-year study of our

force calibrations, eliminating some sources of er- ror and devising more meaningful ways of presenting the calibration results. (b) We have established a formal review process for verification of the accuracy of services from

the Electronic Calibration Center before they are announced. This review gives us a clearer picture

of the sources of error and points out additional

work that would be effective in improving the

services.

(c) We have completed a systematic study of

errors present in the radio-frequency calibration

provided by the IBS laboratories here in Boulder. A detailed report on this work is now in

preparation and will be issued as an NBS

Technical Note. We also are working directly with other laboratories on programs to help them improve the ac- curacy of their outputs. One of these is a new

approach to mass calibration developed recently

in IBS. The basic approach is of very great importance because it is applicable to the dissemination of other types of standards. Some of you are familiar with this "pilot" program. [2] As I recall, some seventeen laboratories are participating in it. A pair of kilogram mass standards (and some

auxiliary weights) recently calibrated by IBS are shipped to the participating laboratory. That lab- oratory uses its own equipment and operators, in

its own environment, to compare its mass standards

with the NBS standards. We specify the comparison procedures and a computer program for cal- culating the results. The program yields the masses

of the laboratory's standards, large and small, and

the uncertainties to be assigned to each. It extracts

all useful information from the data and provides

a statistical evaluation of the measurement process

of the laboratory. Some of this information simply

could not be obtained by sending standards to IBS

for calibration.

This general approach is applicable to other

types of calibrations. Of course, other factors not

important in mass calibration must be taken into account. However, the procedure used is designed

to reveal the precision and accuracy actually being

atained, whatever the sources of error in the

measurement process. Another new approach to calibration is a comparator system for radio standards, based on an Air Force suggestion. The work was supported by

the Air Force. The strength of this system lies in

its redundancy. In the version just completed

special standards of power, impedance, voltage,

and current are used. The interrelationships among

these quantities provide a double redundancy

which permits a check on systematic changes in the

standards in addition to information on precision.

There is practically no chance that a standard can

drift beyond predetermined and acceptable limits

without the drift being detected. The system has

the potential of avoiding the use of arbitrarily set recalibration intervals and will enable the laboratory personnel to know that their standards are in

calibration immediately before and/or after using

them.

Traditionally, IBS has been concerned primarily

with the central core of the measurement system.

The two new approaches just described are ex- amples of our broadened range of interest. In the

pilot program for mass calibrations we are con- cerned with the output accuracy of top-level government and industrial standards laboratories. In

the radio standards comparator we are helping to improve the output of military base calibration

laboratories. These approaches provide the sort of

objective evidence needed to demonstrate the precision and accuracy delivered by a standards lab- oratory. There is need, of course, for objective

methods of demonstrating performance for other

measurement quantities.

In addition, we are engaged in a study of the

radio frequency calibration system of the Department of Defense, funded by the DoD Calibration

Coordinating Group. This study covers the whole

gamut of the calibration hierarchy and extends our

interests to the production line and the field site. So you see that our active interest covers every

echelon of the measurement system.

Such a broad view of the measurement system

is necessary if we are to provide effective solutions

to measurement problems. Investments by IBS in

increased accuracy may be of little value unless

adequate means are available for distributing the

improvements to the ultimate users.

Office of Measurement Services

I would like to tell you about some recent organizational changes in IBS which, we hope, will in- crease our effectiveness—first, some changes made

in Washington.

A few weeks ago, Dr. Ambler received approval

to establish a new Office of Measurement Services

as a part of the IBS Director's Office. Acting Chief

of the new office is Mr. Joseph Cameron, formerly

Chief of the Statistical Engineering Section. The

purpose of the office is to improve the internal

management of our calibration efforts and to make

our services more effective. I shall not devote much time to the internal

operations of the new office but will simply say

that it should provide management information

and a management overview which will permit us

to make better policy decisions and to develop

170
smoother operational procedures. It will provide

information on how operations are proceeding, as compared to our plans, so that corrections can be

made promptly when needed. The technical re- sponsibility for calibration services remains, of

course, in the technical divisions. The office is ex- pected to improve in many ways our services to our

customers and, more broadly, to improve the

relevance of our programs to national needs.

The functions of the office are

(a) to cooperate with the technical divisions in

gathering information and evaluating national

calibration needs

;

(b) to assist in planning for new IBS services

and in phasing out old services when there are

desirable alternatives ; (c) to spearhead and coordinate efforts to develop more effective documentation procedures

which should be more meaningful to users of our

services

;

(d) to help achieve proper balance among the

various types of services offered by IBS, including

calibrations, interlaboratory measurement agree- ment programs, handbooks, and seminars; and

(e) to sponsor or carry out studies of the meas- urement system. We expect that the work of this

office will lead, for example, to studies similar to our study of the DoD radio frequency calibration

system but for other segments of the measurement

system. Also, this work should lead to approaches

equivalent to the mass pilot program or the radio

standards comparator but for other measurement

quantities.

IBS Boulder Operations

I would like to turn now to IBS Boulder operations to illustrate some of the management

techniques used by IBS.

My job at IBS Boulder IS unique m some re- spects. Here, both the technical divisions and the

service divisions report to me. By contrast, in

Washington, the service divisions report at the

NBS level to an Associate Director or to the Deputy Director. The arrangement in Boulder complicates the management problem, but it provides an opportunity to couple the service divisions more

directly with the technical divisions and make the

overall program more effective. I work in close cooperation with the Director of

IBS to develop policy and to manage the Boulder

operation in harmony with IBS Washington. Also,

I work with the responsible officials at the NBS

level to maintain reasonable consistency of operation between the Boulder support divisions and

the corresponding divisions in Washington.

Here is how we work at keeping our program up

to date. One of my staff offices is the Office of Program Development and Evaluation. This office contributes very strongly toward (a) gathering

the data we need for management purposes, (b)

analyzing these data and developing program

plans, and (c) telling the IBS story.

For an organization to perform effectively, its management and the people in it must understand

and agree upon their role. Such agreement can

only be based on accurate information about what

is going on. Therefore we must have up-to-date

information on our fiscal situation, our manpower,

and our facilities. We collect and analyze such

information and supply it to our operatmg divisions. We must also know what is going on in the

outside world that is relevant to our activities. We

encourage the divisions to maintain extensive liai- son with other organizations, and we supplement

their work with efforts of our own. We collect long-range planning information from other

major organizations and state-of-the-art forecasts

closely related to our work.

Central leadership can be provided only through

proper program analysis and planning. Having

collected our data, we then work with the technical

divisions to identify major issues and problems, to design and carry out program studies for sharpening our understanding, to develop long-range goals

for IBS Boulder, and to devise programs for meeting measurement needs.

We have several program studies underway and

are about to start more. We have contributed to

state-of-the-art forecasts closely related to our

fields of interest. We are continuing our efforts to clarify our mission and goals and are working out improved descriptions of our program structure and our outputs. These must be representative of

what we do, and they must be understandable, both

to the public and to our higher levels of management.

A specific goal of this office has been to develop an "output center" with displays showing the

major outputs of our divisions. Such a center provides graphic displays which give visitors a quick

grasp of our overall program. This center is still in the fledgling stage.

Our work is incomplete until our story is told. We have the know-how and the facilities for producing effective visual presentations to major visi- tors, to the devision advisory panels, and to management during program reviews of each division.

Our prime interest is in helping speakers say what

ought to be said, with maximum clarity and

impact.

Now I would like to tell you a little more about our program evaluation and development process

;

in other words, about how we make program decisions. First, let me point out how we draw upon

our own staff, through a series of program reviews.

We devote approximately one day to the work of

each division. The division chief and other key

personnel of the division summarize their total program and report, in detail on areas of specific

interest. At the conclusion of the review. Dr. Ambler and I give confidential evaluations of the work

to the division chief and make suggestions on priorities and program emphasis. We make formal

program decisions near the beginning of the fiscal year, when funds are allocated.

335-^9312 0—69 12 171
Second, let me describe our system of advisory

panels, which meet in the fall and winter. Each

division has its own panel, which meets with the

division for two or three days to review and discuss

its work and then submits its comments and recom- mendations to Dr. Ambler. The chairmen of the

division panels collectively form an IBS advisory

panel, which meets later in the year to provide co- ordinated advice to IBS. Finally, the IBS advisory panel meets with a "visiting committee"

which advises the Secretary of Commerce on NBS.

The members of the advisory panels are experts

chosen from representative groups in government,

industry, and the universities and who are directly

involved with the subject matter of the division.

Thus, the panels provide a formal, systematic

method of supplying us with information for

planning programs and for assessing their effec- tiveness.

Thus, you can see that through direct contacts with key organizations, maintained at many levels within IBS, through formal management reviews

in which the key members of our staff are heard,

and through our system of advisory panels, we

have a good basis for effective program decisions.

We still are far from perfection, but I would like you to know that some of our efforts have been re- ceived favorably by our higher management. You

surely are aware of the Planning, Programming,

and Budgeting (PPB) System which originated

in DoD and now is being applied widely throughout government. The PPB efforts of NBS have

been based largely on the concept of the National

Measurement System developed by Huntoon. This

approach has led to improved understanding and

support of our programs within the Department

of Commerce, the Bureau of the Budget, and (we

believe) the Congress.

I am convinced that NBS receives recognition

and support according to its response to the Nation's measurement needs and its effectiveness in

making this response known to the Congress. I believe that our management approach in IBS gives us a firm foundation on which to build further

success for NBS and further service to the Nation.

Summary

To summarize, I have shown that

(1) IBS provides the central basis for the meas- urement system and also has accepted responsibility for central national leadership of the system.

(2) We are aware of many of the problems of

the measurement system and are actively working

toward solutions.

(3) We have established an Office of Measurement Services in Gaithersburg, to strengthen and

to improve the effectiveness of our services. (4) We have brought all NBS Boulder operations under a single management which is dedicated to improving the relevance of our programs

to national needs. I hope that during the coming months we can improve our effectiveness in support of the meas- urement system and, more specifically, that we

can increase our usefulness to members of the National Conference of Standards Laboratories, who

form a very important part of this system.

References

[1] Huntoon, R. D., The Measurement System of the United States, NCSL 66, Proceedings of the 1966 Stand- ards Laboratory Conference, Natl. Bureau of Standards

Misc. Publication 291, issued July 13, 1967.

[2] Pontius, P. E., Measurement Philosophy of the Pilot Program for Mass Calibration, Natl. Bureau of Standards

Tech. Note 288, issued May 6, 1966.

[3] Pontius, P. E., and J. M. Cameron, Realistic Uncertainties and the Mass Measurement Process, Natl. Bureau

of Standards Monc^aph 103, issued August 15, 1967.

172
WEAPON SYSTEM USER MANAGEMENT OF MEASUREMENTS

Ray Y. Bailey

Deputy Chief, Air Force Calibration and Metrology Division, Newark Air Force Station, Ohio 43055

The Air Force has a system of managing measure- ment requirements which was initially established in 1958. This system requires the producer of weapon systems to provide technical data on all measurement requirements

and the list of equipments which are proposed for making

these measurements.Introduction

In 1958, the Air Force realized the requirement

to provide management of measurement requirements being generated by new weapon systems developed for introduction into the Air Force operational inventory. The Thor missile system was se- lected to be the first weapon to be evaluated for

true measurement requirements. An item-by-item

review was made of all the subsystems to determine

true measurement requirements. As a result of this

review, formats were established and contractual

documents were written to cover calibration re- quirements in the development and production of

all future weapon systems.

Calibration Requirements Summary

The measurement requirements of a weapon sys- tem are identified in a four-part document known

as a Calibration Requirements Summary (fig. 1).

The requirement for preparing such a summary

is levied upon the contractor by Military Specification MIL-Q-9858, which is a part of the contract. The first of the four parts, Operational Equipment, identifies the part of the weapon to be measured. After the identification of the component or subsystem are columns listing the range, accuracy,

operating parameters, number per squadron, and

calibration item.

The second part, Peculiar Measuring Equipment, lists all special test or measuring equipment

specifically designed to support this system. Here

again are listed specification ranges and accuracies

along with the quantity information. The item is here identified with the measurement requirement

in the first part, usually by in-line presentation on

the form.

The third part. Precision Measuring Equipment,

lists the common test equipment used to test or measure the items of the first two categories.

The fourth part. Calibration Equipment, covers

the standards and measuring equipment used by

the calibration organization to support the other

categories.

Management Data

From this display of the measurement requirements of the weapon system, several other actions are generated

:

1. A determination is made by the Air Force

of the suitability of the proposed equipment to meet the measurement needs. The equipment should

not be unnecessarily sophisticated but it must meet

the accuracy requirement of the item being tested.

2. A decision is made as to the capabilities of

the Air Force calibration system to support the

measurement requirements.

3. New calibration equipment requirements are

identified and procurement actions initiated.

4. Training requirements on new measurement

systems and equipments are identified and added

to the established training courses. Workloads

which must be supported at the operating location are identified to provide justification for manpower

requirements.

5. The capabilities of the higher echelon standards laboratories are reviewed to determine if the new measurement standards or equipments can be

calibrated. This may involve a requirement for new or improved calibration services from the

NBS.

The Calibration Requirement Summary is then

published as an Air Force Technical Order for

field use in support of the operational weapon

system.

Conclusions

The Air Force considers the management of

measurements a vital part of weapon system operation and maintenance. The Calibration Requirements Summary is the medium used to determine

the management actions. The organization responsible for accomplishing these management actions

is the Air Force Calibration and Metrology Division, Newark Air Force Station, Newark Ohio.

173
CaLIMATWH IIEOfMEMCKn SUWUIT OPERATIONAL EQUIPMENT- CATEGOflT I PECULIAR MEA& EQUIP- CATEGORY II PRECISION ME AS. EQUIP - CATEGORY HI CALIBRATION EOUIft-CATEOORY IV

OCSCRIPTIOM

AM/ALT-U

La* Vottac* PuJM

CoolaM FV» BHt

0-S.O cnt

1M° GIH

1M°

HO 1/ 4.0 •.• kn AC kra kra AN/ALM-M

Twt Svt. Ctrntroi

D.C. Vollnmi

AM/ALH-n mter

0-4 GPU

mmnit CmllFP-1->S-I-1CM

P/R IMl

Hy^mDc Prvsaan

Gafe TMar

0-7. S GPM

VDC

w/

chart

VDC

•/

01 GPM
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STANDARDS LABORATORIES

REPORT OF THE CHAIRMAN

1967r-68

C. E. White

Avco/MSD

Management and General Activity

The transition from operating year 1966-67 to the year 1967-68 was facilitated by the Chairman's

re-election to office. First meeting of the Board of

Directors was held on November 3, 1968 at Boston

in conjunction with the Northeast Electronic Research Engineering meetings sponsored annually

by the New England Sections of the Institute of

Electrical and Electronic Engineers. A report of

the Board meeting and also of the two Workshops

(Measurement Agreement Comparisons and Community Affairs for Standards Personnel) was con- tained in the December 1967 issue of the NCSL

Newsletter (67^). Officers and Board Members

are listed in Attachment A to this report.

Other official meeting activities of NCSL in- cluded (a) Workshops on Jan. 24-26, 1968 and a Board Meeting on Jan 25, at Anaheim, California; (b) the NCSL 1968 Standards Laboratory

Conference on Aug. 26-29, 1968, Board Meetings

on Aug. 25 and Aug. 28, and the Delegates Assembly on Aug. 28, all at the NBS Boulder Laboratories in Colorado.

The Anaheim Workshops covered problem areas such as Information for Standards Laboratories,

Recommended Practices, Workload Control, Production and Calibration Data, Calibration Procedures, Procurement Regulations, Measurement

Agreement, and publication policies of the Standards Laboratory Directory. Details are contained

in NCSL Newsletter 68-1, March 1968.

The biennial Standards Laboratory Conference

featured numerous papers relating to "Making

Valuable Measurements" and was reported in detail in the September, 1968 Newsletter (68-3).

High spots were an opening address by Dr. A. V.

Astin, Director of NBS, the luncheon speech by

J. L. Sloop of NASA-Washington which stressed

the role of measurement standards in society's en- vironment and behavior, and eight papers from

interested overseas activities. The Delegates Assembly conducted the annual election of officers,

with H. W. Lance moving into the chairmanship.

Division of committee activities into four cate- gories was maintained again this year with J. L. Hayes monitoring the Operational" activities,

E. J. Arsenault watching the "Activities" programs, H. W. Lance overseeing the work of the

"Laboratory Management/Administration" committees, and O. L. Lmebrink coordinating the work

of the "Laboratory Technical Information/Support" activities. Personnel involved in NCSL committee activities are listed in Attachment B to this

report.

An activity not covered by committee reports, is that centered around the idea of a "National Measurements Standards Week", originally conceived

by Past Chairman Van de Houten in 1966. By ac- tion of the Board at Anaheim, in January 1968

the NCSL Chairman was given permission once again to interest Congress and the President in

such an idea. Several meetings were arranged with

a representative of the Speaker of the U.S. House

of Representatives to establish an approach. At

the conclusion of the meetings, the Chairman

withdrew from this approach and arranged to present the idea to the Scientific Apparatus Makers

Association (SAMA) with headquarters in

Washington, D.C. The incoming President of

SAMA, Nathan Cohn, was receptive to the

plan in general, and during a meeting in September 1968 it was agreed that SAMA would coordi- nate the entire idea with the National Society of

Professional Engineers (NSPE). This organization, with a sophistication in matters of this type

far superior to that of NCSL or SAMA, presently

is considering the theme as one suitable for a future

National Engineers Week and will discuss the

matter in subsequent meetings.

NCSL Committee Activity

A-l. Organization Committee. Prepared, and

had accepted by the Board, a policy for handling

requests for calibration procedures originating

from non-United States members. Preliminary

work was done toward control of financial liability

175
of NCSL officers, and establishing procedures for

NCSL meetings.

A-2. Nomination Committee. Reported a slate of officers for ballot at the Delegates Assembly;

conducted the election on Aug. 28. A-3/D-2. Finance/Audit Committees. Conducted the annual audit of the Treasurer's books

;

provided for temporary transition of Treasurer's

duties from D. 1. Hervig to J. R. Van de Houten

;

established a separate Calibration Procedures

Library checking account; prepared an operating

budget for 1967-68 and a preliminary budget for

1968-69; arranged to update and to increase lia- bility amount covered by officers' bonding policy

;

made an inconclusive survey of the position of

NCSL with regards to the lES; submitted sug- gested standardized reporting format for use by

Treasurer. A-^/D-1. Activities/Program Committees.

Planned for and conducted workshop sessions at Boston on Nov. 2-3, 1967 and at Anaheim on

Jan. 26-27, 1968; planned and coordinated functioning of 1968 Standards Laboratory Conference

at Boulder on Aug. 26-29, 1968 ; planned for precision measurement seminar at Orange, California on Oct. 7-9, 1968. A-5. Newsletter Committee. Published regular

quarterly issues and distributed approximately

850 copies of each issue. Conducted cost study of

typical issue to prepare for shift to commercial

handling, if required in future. Total page issue

for operating year was 222 pages. A-6. Information Committee. Participated ac- tively in sessions at the 1968 SLC and at the Anaheim Workshops; prepared and published in the

Newsletter (June 1968) a bibliography on "Measurement Statistics".

A-7. Directory Committee. Distributed the 1967

edition in November, 1967 ; prepared and distributed the 1968 supplement in August 1968 at the

1968 SLC.

A-8. National' Requirements Committee. Reorganizational changes within NBS, and the unexpected death of Sponsor's Delegate Dr. M. B. Wallenstein, prevented any effective work.

A-9. Recommended Practices Committee. The

first tentative practice, approved for distribution,

did not reach the members due to the chairman's

change in position and location. A second practice

in draft form on preparation of calibration proce- dures was distributed for review and comment in

August 1968 at the 1968 SLC.

B-1. Workload Control Committee. Reorganization of the committee membership in this period was completed too late to accomplish more than some data accumulation resulting from a workshop at Anaheim. It is anticipated that a draft

of a recommended practice for recall systems and

intervals will be prepared during 1968-69.

B-2. Personnel Development Committee.

Changes in position and location of several committee members effectively prevented any forward

progress. No report has been received of future

activity planning.

B-3/4/5/6. Measurements Standards Laboratory Committee. This committee actively participated in the Anaheim Workshops, and prepared a summary of a questionnaire distributed in 1967. Future activity appears to be based upon the theme

of quality assurance methods to be employed in

measurement laboratories.

B-7. Procurement Regulations Committee.

During the 1968 SLC, the committee chairman dis- played a coordinate index to military specifications concerned with calibration.

C-1/2/3/4. Criteria for Standards Committee.

This committee was inactive and unmanned during 1967-68.

C-5. Measurement Agreement Comparison

Committee. Actively participated in the Boston

Workshops, Nov. 3, 1967 and at Anaheim, in order

to receive direction for the 1968-69 program;

questionnaires were directed to all 1965-66 participants in the MAC program; committee meetings were held at Gaithersburg and Boulder during

which decisions were made regarding operating

practices for MAC and the possibility of techniques for comparison other than that presently

employed, also the initiation of recommended

practices for national and for inter-company

programs.

C-6. Calibration Procedures Library Committee. During 1967-68, the committee established a

basis for handling requests for procedures from

U.S. -and non-U.S. members. Steps also were taken

to solicit offers from interested activities to take over physical control of the library, permitting

NCSL activity to be expended in the direction of

higher quality and common format of the reports,

plus a reduction of redundancy. The library was

closed by action of the Board until after Jan. 1, 1969 to permit a constructive review of material

already assembled, to prepare for shipment of the

library to another location, and to establish a recommended practice for writing procedures. The

committee was extremely active during this year

and participated directly in both the Anaheim

Workshops and the 1968 SLC.

C-7. Statistical Procedures Committee. Although not participating in any of the year's pro- grams, it is understood that the committee has

prepared a definition glossary and a tentative

statistical procedure for intercomparison of standard cells. Liaison Activity

Active liaison was maintained with the USASI Committee C-100 (Electrical Standards) through

NCSL representative K. Koep (Weston Instru- ments) ; with the IEEE G-IM Technical Subcommittee on Pulse Techniques through D.

Antonucci (Grumman Aircraft) ; with the Precision Measurements Association through the services of P. Painchaud (E-H Research), D.

176
Brungart (Teledyne) and R. Ernst (NAR). In

addition, correspondence bearing upon matters of

related interests was exchanged with J. G. Cameron (Canadian Department of National Defence)

,

L. D. Lawrence (American Society for Quality

Control), F. McGinnis and L. Wilson (Aerospace

Industries Association), O. L. Linebrink (Instniment Society of America), W. G. Amey (Scientific Apparatus Makers Association), H. E.

Barnett and A. H. A. Wynn (British Calibration

Service), and N. L. Lock (E.I.D.-British Ministry

of Aviation).

A surprising niunber of other overseas organizations continued to maintain contact with NCSL.

These included but were not limited to

Working party on Instrument Behavior

(WIB), Delft-Holland

Dutch Service of Weights and Measures,

's-Gravenhage-Holland

National Electrotechnical Institute, TurinItaly

Research Institute of National Defence,

Stockholm-Sweden

Royal Academy of Engineering Sciences,

Stockholm-Sweden

Directorate of Weights and Measures, New

Delhi-India

National Physical Laboratory, New DelhiIndia

National Association of Testing Authorities,

Chatswood-N.S.W.-Australia

Defence Standards Laboratory, Ascot ValeVictoria-Australia

Institute for Industrial Research and Standards, Dublin-Ireland

Statistics

The growth of our organization has been maintained steadily during the past few years and does

not appear to be reaching a plateau in membership.

As of September 30, 1968, memberehip was held by

203 organizations. A listing of member organizations is presented as Attacliment C to this report.

The financial health of the organization continues to be satisfactory. The Treasurer's statement

as of September 30, 1968 showed a balance of

$34,612.52 reflecting in part a larger-than-normal

receipt of dues resulting from a billing for 18

months dues, in order to establish the new fiscal year. Outstanding are charges to be incurred for

printing of the Proceedings of the 1968 Standards

Laboratory Conference, and other unpaid costs incurred at the Conference, and for the Orange

Seminar publicity mailings.

177

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1969 O—332-932
I
i